Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BOURNEMOUTH-SWANAGE MOTOR ROAD AND FERRY BILL

SHEFFIELD ASSAY OFFICE BILL

FEDERATION OF STREET TRADERS UNION (LONDON LOCAL 
AUTHORITIES ACT 1990) (AMENDMENT) BILL

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 17 February.

CROYDON TRAMLINK BILL [Lords]

Ordered,
That the Committee on the Croydon Tramlink Bill [Lords] have leave to visit and inspect the site of the proposed works and areas affected by the proposed works, provided that no evidence shall be taken in the course of such visit and that any party who has made an appearance before the Committee be permitted to attend by his Counsel, Agent or other representative.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Right to Silence

Mr. Bates: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy towards the right to silence.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): In appropriate circumstances, a court should be able to draw proper inferences from an accused person's failure to answer questions before and at his trial. At present, courts are precluded from drawing any inferences of guilt from the failure of an accused person answer such questions. I do not think that that artificial restriction can be justified and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill contains provisions to modify it.

Mr. Bates: In welcoming my right hon. and learned Friend's answer, may I ask whether he agrees with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) that no one has anything to fear from being asked reasonable questions? Does he accept that many of our right hon. and hon. Friends are puzzled at the Labour party's failure to support such a modest measure in Committee?

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and, on that matter, with the hon. Member for Brightside. It is a matter of considerable regret that the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagues have not seen fit to follow his opinion on that question.

Mr. Gunnell: The Secretary of State will know that many of those who have made representations to us on that issue have pointed out that there will be a significant increase in the number of miscarriages of justice as a result of the proposed legislation, especially when it applies to those who have disabilities. Does the Secretary of Stale agree that, before he makes any changes, it would be better to wait until we have procedures in force to deal with miscarriages of justice, as recommended by the Royal Commission on criminal justice?

Mr. Howard: We should like to put those procedures in place as soon as posssible. The truth of the matter is that those who make disproportionate use of the so-called right to silence are professional criminals and terrorists. They make a mockery of our system of criminal justice and the sooner that we put an end to that abuse the better.

Mr. Heald: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Lord Chief Justice said clearly in his Tom Sergant lecture that there is no reason why proper inferences should not be drawn under such circumstances? Does he agree with that statement?

Mr. Howard: I certainly agree. That was also the view of the majority of judges who gave evidence to the Royal Commission on criminal justice.

Mr. Allen: While unemployment and poor housing can never be an excuse for crime, does the Secretary of State accept that 14 years of Government policies on


unemployment, housing and education could have contributed in any way to the appalling rise in the levels of crime over that same 14-year period?

Madam Speaker: Order. The question is a specific one dealing with the right to silence. I must ask the hon. Member to relate his question directly to the question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Allen: Does the Secretary of State feel that the current Bill will in any way affect those factors?

Madam Speaker: Order. Those factors have nothing to do with the question.

Dame Jill Knight: On the question of miscarriages of justice, will the changes that my right hon. and learned Friend envisages take into account the appalling case, which aroused such public concern, of the parents who undoubtedly killed their small baby and yet walked free from the court because of that right to silence?

Mr. Howard: I very much hope that the changes that we are making will go some considerable way towards remedying the manifest injustice of the case to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. The whole House will have seen just a moment ago the extraordinary extent to which Labour Front-Bench Members will go to talk about anything other than the real issues affecting law and order.

Wheel Clamping

Mr. Spellar: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take to regulate private wheel clamping.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): We are currently considering what action it may be appropriate to take. In doing so, our aim will be to ensure that any measure introduced to prevent or to deter irresponsible and heavy-handed wheel clamping on private land does not prevent sensible measures being taken to control genuine parking problems.

Mr. Spellar: Does the Minister accept that that answer is quite unsatisfactory, given that his departmental consultations ended on 31 May last year? Is not it about time that he looked at the issue? The cowboy clampers are still making motorists' lives a misery. An amendment has been tabled to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. Why does not the Minister do something about it and take some action?

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that the consultation did not reveal any clear consensus on the way forward. I am very conscious of the fact that there is a balance to be struck here. We must protect the interests of the genuine landowner and the interests of the genuine motorist. Wheel clamping has proved to be an effective means of deterring some motorists who are parking illegally and causing considerable inconvenience at road access ways, hospitals, retail centres and on other private land.

Mr. Alexander: Does my hon. Friend agree that the activities of some companies are excessive? Does he agree that women in particular are put in fear and great anxiety when they have to redeem their cars? Although I accept all that he says, may I stress as a matter of urgency that those excesses should be removed?

Mr. Maclean: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We have consulted on the issue and we are currently considering what we need to do. It would be wrong of the Opposition—I know that my hon. Friend did not seek to make this point—to conclude that there is a simple, easy explanation and way forward or to conclude that all the fault lies clearly on one side. It does not. Before the House rushes in and creates new criminal laws to deal with the problem, we must ensure that we protect the legitimate interests of both sides of the argument.

Police Authorities

Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has had about his proposals for change in the method of appointment of police authorities.

Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further discussions he has had with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) regarding the Criminal Justice Bill and the Police and Magistrates Court Bill [Lords].

Mr. Howard: I have received many representations from organisations, members of the public and hon. Members. Last week, I announced measures that we propose to include in the Police and Magistrates Courts Bill to reinforce the independence of local police authorities. We have had a number of discussions with representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers about that Bill and about the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.

Mr. Pickthall: I am amazed at the effect that my tabling the question had on the Home Secretary. Does he realise that his generous and ungrudging U-turn on the appointment of chairmen and chairwomen, and on the numbers in police authorities, has delighted most Members of the House, most members of the other place, members of police authorities and the police forces themselves? Will the Home Secretary now take one more U-turn towards democracy and remove his most distasteful proposal: to add five or more placemen or women to police authorities?

Mr. Howard: No. Independent local people who do not have the time or the inclination to become magistrates or councillors can make a valuable contribution to the working of the local police authorities. I do not believe that local police authorities should be denied the benefit of their service.

Mr. Streeter: Did those representatives reflect the growing public concern that some police authorities had been tardy in introducing modern management techniques and information technology? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree, therefore, that it is extremely sensible to have on police authorities people who bring management, financial and IT skills, which can only assist the police in doing their duty?

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Police and Magistrates Courts Bill will provide strong local police authorities to reflect the interests of local people, greater freedom for chief constables to manage


their forces and a clear framework for setting priorities and measuring performance. The measures will contribute to more effective policing.

Mr. Blair: Now that the Secretary of State has accepted that it is wrong to appoint the head of the police authority, what possible justification is there for proceeding with appointing one third of the members, thus ensuring that his national objectives for policing should override local priorities and forcing smaller police services to amalgamate, even where local people do not want that? As the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers said last week, after the Secretary of State's U-turn, that the proposals were still ill-conceived and publicly unacceptable, what possible support does he have for proceeding with them?

Mr. Howard: I have just explained to the House the purpose of my measures. It is for this House and the other House of Parliament to decide what measures we should take; it is not even for the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers. We must set in place the proper framework for policing in this country. We must have slimmed down and effective police authorities to which there will be proper local accountability. That is what my measures will achieve.

Legislation (Police Consultation)

Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has received from police representatives since the publication of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.

Mr. David Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has received from the police to his announcements of new measures to tackle crime; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Howard: Representatives of the police service have expressed strong support for the Government's new measures to tackle crime, particularly the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill now before the House. We have had a number of discussions with representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers about the Bill.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. In the fight against crime and on law and order issues, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill is one of the most important Bills ever to come before the House. Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall the statement of the Opposition spokeseman on law and order, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), that we should not hesitate to applaud the Government when they introduce measures that are correct? Will he now take the opportunity to invite Her Majesty's Opposition to support the Bill in all its remaining stages? If they do not, what conclusion can people draw from the Opposition's stance on law and order?

Mr. Howard: The only logical conclusion that people can draw from the Opposition's reaction to these measures is that they cannot make up their mind about them. When the measures came before the House for Second Reading, the Opposition could not make up their mind whether to vote for or against, or whether to say yes or no—they simply abstained. Since then, in the Standing Committee,

we have seen a series of attempts to weaken the measures in the Bill—to neuter them and make them have as little effect as possible.

Mr. Trimble: May I direct the Home Secretary's attention to the provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill dealing with computer-generated pornographic images of children which were introduced as a result of a successful campaign by the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton)? Has he received any representations about the fact that those provisions do not extend to Northern Ireland, bearing in mind the ease with which computer material can be transmitted from one part of the kingdom to another? Is not it essential that the loophole be plugged as soon as possible, preferably this afternoon?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point which I shall certainly draw to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mrs. Peacock: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the great concern expressed by the police not only in my constituency but in other areas about the violent crimes being committed by many young people? Will he assure the House that his tougher measures will be implemented as soon as the Bill becomes law?

Mr. Howard: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that we will implement the measures at the earliest possible moment because we understand how urgently necessary they are to protect the public.

Mr. Michael: Will the Home Secretary read the report of the Committee considering the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill and admit that the Opposition have been trying to make effective a Bill that he has admitted will do nothing to cut crime? With crime up more than 124 per cent. under the Tories, and with only one crime in 50 ending with a punishment in the courts, when will the Home Secretary accept Labour's advice to be tough on crime and the causes of crime by providing a legal framework for a local partnership between the police, local authorities and the community to cut crime and protect the victims of crime?

Mr. Howard: I thought that the hon. Gentleman would be the last person to want me to read the reports of the proceedings of the Standing Committee. He has been comprehensively routed by my hon. Friend the Minister of State and by other hon. Friends on the Committee whenever he has dared to raise his head above the parapet.

Mr. Stephen: Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in condemning the appalling murder of Police Sergeant Robertson in Croydon? Will he give careful consideration to the amendment that I have tabled to the Criminal Justice Bill which would ensure that, when the persons responsible for that murder are caught, life imprisonment would mean exactly what it says?

Mr. Howard: I heard with great regret of the tragic death yesterday of Sergeant Robertson. The House will share my sense of outrage that it should happen to a police officer who was bravely doing his duty. The House will want to join me in extending the deepest sympathy to his


widow and children. His death reminds us again of the enormous debt which we as a society owe to our police officers.
As to the specific point raised by my hon. Friend, I will, of course, consider his amendment. He will know that one of my predecessors, Sir Leon Brittan, announced that the minimum sentence served for the murder of a police officer—I emphasise the word minimum—would be 20 years. I have indicated my desire to follow that practice.

Madam Speaker: Order. As the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) was not told that his question was to be linked, we shall now take Question 5.

Legislation (Police Consultation)

Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further discussions he has had with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) regarding the Criminal Justice Bill and the Police and Magistrates Courts Bill [Lords].

Mr. Howard: May I immediately apologise to the hon. Gentleman for the fact that he was not informed, as he certainly should have been.
I have received many representations from and have had discussions with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) regarding the Criminal Justice Bill and the Police and Magistrates Courts Bill.

Mr. McFall: I thank the Home Secretary. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is responsible for clause 45 of the Police and Magistrates Courts Bill, which covers Scotland. This morning, I talked to two Scottish chief constables, who expressed their concerns to me about the interest that the Secretary of State for Scotland can now take in operational matters as a result of that clause. That will interfere with the independence of the police, and they are so concerned about it that they would like to pass their concerns, through me, to the Home Secretary. Will a meeting take place with the relevant Minister to assure the police that their optional independence will be maintained following the passage of Bill?

Mr. Howard: I can certainly give the assurance for which the hon. Gentleman asks in relation to the operational independence of chief constables. That is essential and it is written into the Bill in exactly the same language as is on the statute book at present in the Police Act 1964.

Sir George Gardiner: rose—

Hon. Members: Two minutes!

Madam Speaker: Order.

Sir George Gardiner: Since an obvious concern of the police authorities is the safety of their officers, may I say how much Mrs. Christine Robertson—a constituent of mine—will be comforted by the sympathy which my right hon. and learned Friend has extended this afternoon on behalf of the House? Does he agree that it is only the courage and dedication to duty of officers such as Sergeant Robertson which provides the shield to protect us all?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the first part of his remarks and I entirely agree with the rest of what he had to say.

Crime Reduction

Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations his Department has had with the local authority associations regarding reducing crime; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): The Home Office has from time to time sought the views of the local authority associations on crime-related matters, including their contribution to local crime prevention schemes.

Mr. O'Brien: Does the Minister accept that the local authority associations are worried about some of the proposals in the Police and Magistrates Courts Bill? They are worried that the reduction in the number of local authority members on police committees will reduce the impact that it is necessary for local authorities to have if we are to reduce crime. We must have corporate organisation between the community, the local authority and the police committees. Will the Minister prevail on his colleague to rethink the Bill to allow greater representation of local authorities on police committees?

Mr. Wardle: As the hon. Gentleman will have noticed, local authority representatives will account for half the membership of police authorities. As he knows, the police Bill will place a requirement on police authorities to consult locally and to draw up locally focused policing strategies and report on them. The local authorities are part of the partnership against crime. In several schemes up and down the country, the co-ordinator has been appointed by the local authorities. Equally, in many other successful schemes the co-ordinator has been appointed by other sources.

Mr. John Townend: Has my hon. Friend had any demand for the restoration of some form of physical punishment? Does the enormous increase in crime among young people of school age suggest that we are paying the price, after a decade of abolition of the cane, of lack of discipline in schools and in the home?

Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend's powerful plea will have been heard by the House. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will always consider any representations put to him. My hon. Friend will also be aware that the House will shortly have the opportunity to debate the issue of capital punishment.

Mr. Redmond: The Minister must be aware of the Prime Minister's "back to basics" campaign. Will he ensure that there are sufficient policemen on duty in villages? We do not want any crap about there being more policemen. There is no doubt that communities are demanding more policemen. Will the Minister also ensure that they have sufficient technology to combat the current crime wave?

Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman will know that there are more police officers now—128,000—than at any time in the history of the police. He will know that spending on the police is almost £6,000 million. I am sure that he will have welcomed my right hon. and learned Friend's


announcement that the number of special constables should increase to 30,000 in the next three years. He will also have welcomed the parish constable initiative.

Madam Speaker: Order. As the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) was not informed that his question was linked, I am prepared to call it separately.

Crime Reduction

Mr. David Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has received from the police to his announcement of new measures to tackles crime; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Howard: My announcement of the measures that I am taking to fight crime have been warmly welcomed by the police.

Mr. Martin: I strongly support my right hon. and learned Friend's reforms. Has he received any representations about arming the police in this capital punishment-free era when any Tom, Dick or Harry can go out on to the streets armed with a knife or a gun, use it to kill police officers or members of the public in furtherance of crime and, if caught, not receive an appropriate penalty? They do not face much risk in carrying out the crime.

Mr. Howard: I do not accept the latter words of my hon. Friend, especially in view of the answer that I gave earlier on the sentences that are available. The question of arming the police is a difficult one. At present, it is for chief officers to decide in what circumstances their officers should be armed and how many should be armed. I do not believe that there is any middle course between that and arming every police officer in Britain—a course which I believe most people in Britain and most police officers would not want us to adopt.

Mrs. Ewing: Given the increased concern among the public and police authorities about crimes related to specifically to drugs, is the Home Secretary prepared to introduce specific measures to deal with drug-related crimes and to provide our police authorities with additional resources to tackle that problem?

Mr. Howard: We have a comprehensive strategy in place to tackle the very serious problem of drug misuse and we are pursuing that strategy vigorously. I hope that the country will take note of the vote on the decriminalisation of drugs that is being held in the European Parliament today, which is expected to be supported by the majority of socialist Members of the European Parliament both from this country and from the rest of Europe.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Further to the last supplementary question, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that during the years of Conservative Government we have had a strong attitude towards drug-related crime, but that the police are nevertheless very concerned that the proportion of such crimes has risen to something approaching 70 per cent. So the measures that we have taken hitherto have simply not been sufficient to deal with the problem. As he can see, the view is shared across all party lines in this House, so will he redouble his efforts to ensure that in the years ahead the proportion of drug-related crimes falls instead of rises?

Mr. Howard: I share my hon. and learned Friend's concern and I can assure him that we lose no opportunity of examining our policies to find out in which ways they can be made more effective. I entirely understand and share his concern.

Racial Violence

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received over legislation affecting racial violence.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): We continue to receive representations from a wide range of organisations and from hon. Members. The Commission for Racial Equality made a number of recommendations for changes in the law in its second review of the Race Relations Act 1976, which we are considering. The Select Committee on Home Affairs is also examining the issue, as part of its inquiry into racial attacks and harassment and we await its recommendations with interest.

Mr. Winnick: I deplore all forms of violence, including the horrifying murder of a police sergeant in New Addington, Croydon.
Has not the Minister given evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs in which he estimated that racial attacks could be as high as 130,000 a year? In view of continuing racially motivated attacks—in the main carried out by fascist gangs—on totally innocent people because of their origins or the colour of their skin, has not the time come to amend the law and to ensure that such attacks become an offence, in addition to offences under existing criminal legislation?

Mr. Lloyd: I am at one with the hon. Gentleman in deploring all assaults and attacks. I am glad that he has given me the opportunity to correct his misunderstanding of the figure that I gave to the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I referred to 130,000 racial incidents. Only a very small proportion were physical assaults.
The hon. Gentleman is barking up the wrong tree if he thinks that the law needs to be changed to make physical attacks an extra criminal offence; they clearly are a criminal offence at the moment. Whether the victim or the perpetrator is white or black, the sentence for grievous bodily harm can be life imprisonment. The important thing is to get evidence and a conviction.
The hon. Gentleman should be concerned about smaller incidents and harassment. Although each incident is not very significant, with repetition they become corrosive, deeply hurtful and destructive. That is where we should study the law to find out whether changes are needed.

Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is one certain way to cut out racial violence, or violence of any description? If someone is put in prison for five years they should serve five years. Let us stop all this nonsense about remission, rehabilitation and parole—let offenders serve five years. If the Prison Officers Association says that prison officers have no control over prisoners, let us make prisoners serve extra years if they misbehave.

Mr. Lloyd: Many people will have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's remarks. However, fie forgets—but the judiciary does not—that the law enables a


prisoner to be released half way through his sentence and so the judiciary imposes sentences with that in mind. Release at half time, which is allowed under the Criminal Justice Act 1991, makes it possible for offenders to be supervised and at risk of being returned to prison. That is a better guarantee of their reintegration into the community and a better sanction for their good behaviour.

Ms Ruddock: The Minister will be well aware of the fact that the Labour party has tabled an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill that will effectively deal with racial harassment. The amendment is in a form that the hon. Gentleman has suggested may be acceptable to the Government, and we hope that they will accept it. Does the Minister realise how black people in this country feel? Does not he understand that when they are subjected to racial attack they become victims twice over—first, because of the violence itself and, secondly, because they know that they have been picked on as a result of their race. Surely it is time for the Government to take these matters much more seriously and to accept the amendment that we have tabled.

Mr. Lloyd: I am not sure that the hon. Lady is quite clear about her own party's amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill. My understanding is that it deals with racial violence rather than harassment. On the question of harassment, I have nothing to add to the points that I have just made. We are looking at the public order legislation, and we want to see the report of the Select Committee before finally making up our minds about what changes should be made. I believe that the pressure from the hon. Lady's party relates to a separate crime of racial violence, which would do nothing to secure the conviction of those who perpetrate racial violence and would, in the long term, be bad for community relations.

Mr. John Greenway: I promise my hon. Friend that the Select Committee will ensure that Ministers receive its report as quickly as possible. In the meantime, may I ask whether he agrees that what we require is not necessarily more legislation but better police practice? Does he share my admiration for the racial violence unit at Plumstead police station, which, over many years, has painstakingly built up a very good relationship with local ethnic communities? Does my hon. Friend know that much of that good work was undone by the Anti-Nazi League's march through south-east London a few months ago?

Mr. Lloyd: I believe that these marches do nothing but heighten tension. I agree with my hon. Friend that the police have made enormous efforts to establish good relationships with the ethnic minority communities and, thereby, encourage the members of those communities to report any crimes against them. My hon. Friend will know that we have recalled the racial attacks group to consider improvements in the practices in this area and to decide whether these could be improved further.

Police Injuries

Mr. Hardy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were injured in the performance of their duties in 1993.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Information on the number of injuries is not held centrally. In 1992, in England and Wales, 14,946 police officers were assaulted while on duty. Figures for 1993 are not yet available.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister agree that it is not all that long since policemen could expect, or at least hope, to complete their service without sustaining serious criminal injury? The dreadful incident yesterday and the figure that the Minister has just given the House suggest that policemen can no longer hold such a hope. Will the Home Secretary, the courts and the Crown Prosecution Service accept that they have an obligation to consider this matter urgently with a view to securing the improvement that is so desperately needed?

Mr. Wardle: My right hon. and learned Friend has made it clear that he will ensure that the police have the necessary equipment to protect themselves from attacks and assaults. The House has already made known its deep regret at the tragic murder of Sergeant Robertson yesterday. In fact, the number of assaults on police officers dropped in the last two years for which information is available, as did the number of serious assaults and fatal assaults. The police scientific and development branch keeps the question of body armour under review all the time, and chief officers are able to issue ballistic vests when that is considered appropriate.

Mr. Shersby: What resources is the police scientific and development branch providing for the testing of knife-proof and bullet-proof vests? Can the Minister give the House an assurance that there will not be any delay in the testing programme on account of lack of resources and that, where necessary, private sector firms that produce this equipment will be allowed to provide the necessary resources to enable testing to be carried out as quickly as possible?

Mr. Wardle: As my hon. Friend will know, the scientific and development branch is able to keep all new developments in body armour under review. It liaises closely in its findings with all police forces.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister acknowledge that if police officers wish to acquire and wear bullet-proof vests, they must pay for them, save in the narrow circumstances that he mentioned? Will he discuss with chief police officers and police authorities throughout the country whether that is appropriate?

Mr. Wardle: As I have already said, it is for chief police officers to decide the operational circumstances in which ballistic vests will be issued. One police force, the Northumbria constabulary, recently acquired 600 vests and, I understand, intends to make them available for wider use within the force. But it is up to chief officers to make the operational decision.

Young Offenders

Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what would be the effect of allowing only Crown courts to pass secure training orders on persistent juvenile offenders.

Mr. Maclean: The principal effect of confining this sentence to the Crown court would be delay in dealing with offenders and additional costs for the criminal justice


system. The Government believe that it is important for youth courts to have the power to make a secure training order when the right criteria have been met.

Mr. Moss: Does my hon. Friend agree that restricting the provisions of the Bill to the extent that they have no practical effect is no different from opposing them outright? In their attempts to emasculate the Bill in Standing Committee, do not the Opposition show their total inadequacy in tackling the problems of juvenile crime?

Mr. Maclean: What we saw on Second Reading was a dithering Opposition who did not know whether to vote for or against the measures. In Committee, they tabled amendments that would have made it practically impossible for anyone taken to court to be sentenced for the persistent crimes that they were committing.

Mr. Mandelson: Is the Minister aware of the concern of the police about the video now being sold entitled "Police Stop", which consists of 50 minutes worth of spectacular car chases and motorway smash-ups? Does he agree that that reckless video provides copycat encouragement to young "twockers" and joyriders and should be withdrawn from sale forthwith?

Mr. Maclean: There is a tremendous responsibility on all those who make videos to ensure that they do not lead the young or innocent astray. As the hon. Gentleman knows, videos containing sexual or violent material must satisfy very strict criteria. I shall be happy to look at the video and include it in my review of the adequacy of the law relating to videos.

Lenient Sentences

Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding his proposal to extend the Attorney-General's right of appeal against lenient sentences.

Mr. Maclean: I have received a number of representations on that issue. It is abundantly clear that the plans to extend the scope of the Attorney-General's powers command widespread and enthusiastic support.

Mr. Dunn: Has the Minister received any representations on that proposal from the Labour party?

Mr. Maclean: I am not aware of having received any representations from the Labour party on that subject. I am aware, however, that when the Government introduced the power in 1987, the Labour party fought against it tooth and nail and voted against the Attorney-General's right to review sentences and send to the Court of Appeal those sentences that he thought were unduly lenient.

Mrs. Roche: Will the Minister explain whether he has taken measures to investigate the fact, as was revealed in answer to parliamentary questions, that there is a great regional variety in the length of sentences in rape cases and that some sentences for rape are excessively lenient? What does the Minister propose to do about it?

Mr. Maclean: It is rather rich for a representative of the Labour party to complain that some sentences in rape cases may be lenient when the hon. Lady's party voted against our taking that power in the first place. Since we took that

power, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has referred 129 cases to the Court of Appeal, and in 84 of those the sentence has been increased. Those include many rape cases. My right hon. and learned Friend will certainly send cases to the Court of Appeal if he concludes that his criteria have been met and the sentence is unduly lenient.

Car Boot Sales

Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the sale of stolen property at car boot sales.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Representations have been received from nine hon. Members and from five members of the public.

Mr. Luff: Is my hon. Friend aware that, although many chief constables may say that it is not a problem, many ordinary police constables and many of our constituents, who are sometimes advised by the police to go to car boot sales to seek the proceeds of crime for their homes, take a different view? Does my hon. Friend agree that it should be possible to maintain the enjoyment that many thousands of our constituents derive from car boot sales, while making it rather more difficult for the proceeds of crime to find such an easy market?

Mr. Wardle: As my hon. Friend will be aware, one local authority—North Yorkshire county council—makes use of local registration to register occasional sales and secondhand dealers. It has registered 4,000 and has had 50 prosecutions, all for non-registration. The North Yorkshire police have no information about any cases of handling stolen goods. I am reviewing with the North Yorkshire authorities the effectiveness of that scheme. Meanwhile, a police officer who identifies such problems will know that powers exist under section 22 of the Theft Act 1968 to deal with the disposal of stolen goods. The maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 February.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today.

Mr. Flynn: In a letter to me from the Imperial Tobacco Company, the corrupt practice is exposed that, in the general election, it awarded 1,000 advertising sites to the Tory party because the Tory party promised not to ban tobacco advertising. The Government have now delivered on that promise to their paymasters. The cost will be borne by the nation in several thousand avoidable and unnecessary deaths. Will the Prime Minister promise today that never again will the Tory party accept bribes, favours or money from the tobacco industry?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman clearly overlooks the excellent record that this Government have


had in reducing smoking—down from 45 to 28 per cent. He knows very well of the changes in taxation that have been necessary to achieve that. He illustrates that no company that was remotely sensible would support the policies of the Labour party.

Mr. Waterson: Will my right hon. Friend consider making public funds available so that every business in the land can be sent a copy of the European socialist manifesto so that they may judge for themselves whether it is a constructive business plan or a fast route to failure?

The Prime Minister: I am not entirely sure that would be a proper use of public funds. I very much doubt whether anybody would really wish to read it. It is certainly clear that what is contained in that socialist manifesto, which was signed up to by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)—without, as I recall, reading it—would be desperately damaging for British industry. It is equally true that the decision in the past of Members of the European Parliament who support the Labour party to vote for ending single nation vetoes would in effect mean that we would not be able to sustain our rebate, at a cost of many billions of pounds to the British taxpayer.

Mr. John Smith: Given the widespread concern throughout the country at the arbitrary and unfair decisions that are being produced by the system operated by the Child Support Agency, why are the Government so opposed to allowing an independent review of its decisions?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there will be a full debate on that issue later today. As I have said on previous occasions, we have made it clear that we shall keep the nature of the system under review and if it seems necessary to make changes we will do so. We are embarking on implementing a principle that is supported uniformly across the House. We need a little more experience of how it works. We will keep it under review. If it is necessary to make changes, we shall make them then, not now.

Mr. John Smith: Is not the Prime Minister aware that the phrase "keeping under review" has been the bromide response of bureaucrats down the decades? Why do the Government—despite all the evidence—stop the Child Support Agency from taking into account divorce or separation agreements involving the transfer of assets, which may be highly relevant to establishing justice between the parties?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman obviously did not listen to what I said a moment ago. I made it perfectly clear that we would continue to evaluate the workings of the Child Support Act 1991 and the agency. We intend to secure a well-accepted, consistent mechanism to deliver a better child maintenance system than we have had in the past. That is why I said that we would keep the matter under review.
This system is unlike anything that has been tried before. It is generally accepted to be right in principle—not least by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who is nodding. It is right to consider it and, having considered it, decide then whether further changes are necessary.

Mr. John Smith: The Prime Minister cannot be so complacent about the anger that is now felt throughout the

country—and his Back Benchers certainly should not be so complacent about it. Does not 80 per cent. of the money recovered by the agency go straight to the Treasury? Did the Government intend that?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman reveals instinctively that he thinks in terms of "big government", rather than thinking of the taxpayer. The money is actually returned to the taxpayer who contributed it in the first place.

Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that Britain's only interest in Bosnia is assisting in the provision of humanitarian aid? Can he assure the House that we will not prejudice that effort by attacking any of the combatants?

The Prime Minister: The measures agreed yesterday at the North Atlantic Council are intended primarily to reinforce the peace process. There will be renewed diplomatic effort to encourage all sides to reach an agreement and stick to it.
No course in Bosnia is free of risks; that has been the case from the beginning. I do not myself believe, however, that doing nothing would be the right option for the House or NATO to adopt in the circumstances that have now arisen. In the discussions at the North Atlantic Council, we urged our allies to look forward. We do not favour purely punitive action; force should not be used unless it is genuinely necessary, and increases the chance of a peaceful settlement.
Another relevant point is the fact that NATO has warned all sides to cease their bombardment. It has taken specific and carefully constructed decisions to reinforce the efforts of the commanders on the ground, but the objective is to help the civilian population without changing the character of the United Nations' role.

Mr. Cousins: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Cousins: Does the Prime Minister agree that, although private matters can be cruelly exposed within hours, issues of public accountability can sometimes lie dormant for years? Can he assure the House that British aid and export packages have never been used to cover the cost of large-scale commissions and backhanders?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of no circumstances in which that has happened. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to the contrary, I hope that he will show it either to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary or to me.

Mr. Cash: Has my right hon. Friend seen the manifesto adopted by the European Peoples party on 3 February? Is he aware that it contains a commitment to a single currency, a central bank, the social chapter, a common immigration policy and a constitution for the whole of Europe? Does he agree that Conservative Members could not possibly accept those proposals, and repudiate them explicitly?

The Prime Minister: Neither do we have to accept them; nor will we. The Conservative party at the European elections is in agreement and will contest those elections on a distinctively British Conservative manifesto on the future of Europe.

Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Illsley: On the subject of the appropriate use of the taxpayers' money, does not the Prime Minister agree that it is an absolute disgrace that the Department of Employment can waste £59 million on unused computer equipment, when thousands of my constituents are facing cuts in unemployment benefit as a result of his mismanagement, or are bureaucratic waste, sleaze and corruption no longer his responsibility?

The Prime Minister: The Government always study Public Accounts Committee reports carefully. The lessons in that have already been learnt and put into practice.

Mr. Alan Howarth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that national health service trusts, general practitioner fundholding and the patients charter are yielding valuable improvements in efficiency and quality of service? Does he further agree that not only the patients, but those who work in the national health service do not want those reforms undone and everything turned upside down, as the Labour party proposes?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. The test that we should apply to the health service and efficiency is perfectly straightforward. Is the health service treating more patients? Is it providing better care and is it treating people more quickly? The answer to each of those questions is yes. The national health service treated 2·5 million more patients last year than in 1979. By contrast, the ludicrous document launched by the right hon. and learned Gentleman this morning, contains nothing that would lead to a single extra patient being treated. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he would like to abolish trusts and fundholding. That is a recipe for inefficiency, upheaval and chaos.

Mr. Jamieson: Is the Prime Minister aware that his education Minister in the other place announced last week that there would be no extra assistance to grant-maintained schools for their liability to pay value added tax on fuel? Is he aware that grant-maintained schools are now paying £2·50 in every £100 in taxation rather than on books?

The Prime Minister: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that more and more schools are seeking to become grant maintained and doing so week after week?

Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Gillan: In his very busy day, has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to look at the recent Confederation of British Industry survey, which shows that business confidence in Britain is at an all-time high? Orders are up and, in the words of the CBI survey, the recovery is deepening and widening. Does he agree that such good economic indicators and such good signs bode well for private investment in projects such as crossrail?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend refers to one of a number of surveys that have highlighted the improving economic circumstances. The survey to which my hon. Friend refers shows business and export optimism up in each and every region of the country. Orders are up, output is expected to rise and investment in plant and machinery is expected to rise. That is against a background of low inflation with unit costs falling in most regions. The prospects for British business are extremely good. By getting inflation under control, cutting public spending and bringing interest rates down, we have provided exactly the right economic circumstances for long-sustained growth with low inflation and the creation of employment.

Yugoslavia

Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Prime Minister what is his estimate of the number of people killed in Sarajevo since the passage of the United Nations Security Council resolution of June 1992 authorising the use of force by UNPROFOR to protect the safe areas.

The Prime Minister: We do not have reliable estimates for casualties in Sarajevo. The death toll has been high. The killing of 68 shoppers in the market last Saturday was a step change in a deteriorating situation. There can be no guarantee of peace in Sarajevo or in any other part of Bosnia. There is no feasible and certain means of resolving the problem from outside, but the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's decision yesterday will put the parties under heavier pressure to stop the bombardment and make peace.

Mr. Macdonald: Does the Prime Minister accept that there can be no logical or moral justification for distinguishing between Sarajevo and the other UN-designated safe areas in Bosnia, and that about 2,500 civilians have died in all those safe areas since June last year, when the UN authorised the use of force to protect those people? Will he, therefore, undertake to work to extend the ultimatum that has been issued in respect of Sarajevo to those other safe areas?

The Prime Minister: We have to determine what is practicable. We are already working, as far as Srebrenica and Tuzla are concerned, to try and ensure that the situation improves. We are now doing that having seen the special difficulties in Sarajevo. To follow to its logical conclusion the concern that the hon. Gentleman set out would involve our becoming involved, very probably with troops on the ground, throughout the whole of the area of conflict. However strongly the hon. Gentleman may feel about the matter, or others, that is not a practicable proposition.

Air Strikes (Bosnia)

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, I should like to make a statement on Sarajevo.
In the senseless atrocities last week, about 70 civilians were killed. Their deaths showed again how urgent it is to end the war. It will not end by military victory. A lasting settlement cannot be imposed. It can only be achieved by agreement between the parties. The Government repeat their full support for the efforts of Lord Owen and Mr. Stoltenberg. I welcome recent indications that the United States wants to take a more forward part in the peace process.
Meanwhile, every sane person wants to see an end to the bombardment of Sarajevo. As hon. Members will be aware, and as the Prime Minister has just said, the Secretary-General of the United Nations wrote to his NATO counterpart on 6 February, asking the North Atlantic Council to authorise its military command to launch air strikes on request from the United Nations. Mr. Bourtros-Ghali recalled NATO's readiness, following its decisions last August that were reaffirmed at the NATO summit in January, to carry out air strikes to protect UNPROFOR and to prevent the strangulation of Sarajevo.
NATO ambassadors met yesterday, in the North Atlantic Council. They reaffirmed NATO's support for a negotiated settlement of the conflict in Bosnia, agreed by all parties. They commended the United Nations negotiating efforts to secure the demilitarisation of Sarajevo. In support of those efforts, they agreed on three main points.
First, with immediate effect, they accepted the Secretary-General of the United Nation's request to be prepared to launch air strikes, at United Nations initiative and in co-ordination with UNPROFOR, the United Nations force on the ground, against artillery or mortar positions that UNPROFOR determines are responsible for attacks against civilian targets in Sarajevo.
Secondly, the North Atlantic Council called on the parties to respect a ceasfire around Sarajevo. The Bosnian Serbs were called on to withdraw all heavy weapons from within 20 km of the city, excluding an area within 2 km of the centre of the Bosnian Serb capital of Pale, or to place their heavy weapons under UNPROFOR control. The Bosnian Government, for their part, were called on to place their heavy weapons in the same area under United Nations control and to refrain from attacks within the city.
Thirdly, the Council decided that all heavy weapons, along with their direct and essential military support, found within 20 km of Sarajevo and not under United Nations control after 10 days from 24.00 GMT—midnight—tonight, 10 February, would be subject to NATO air strikes. Those air strikes would be conducted in close co-ordination with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
As the Prime Minister has just said, the Government fully support those decisions. We helped to ensure that they were discussed and taken in NATO rather than any other forum because of the need for professional military advice. The NATO Council will be kept fully informed of all developments, day by day, and will review yesterday's decision at the latest on 2 March. We were clear that any

strategy for the use of force should be forward looking. There was no support in the Council for action which was simply punitive.
We have, since last August, been prepared—publicly prepared—to see air power used, if necessary and practicable, to back the United Nations in carrying out its mandate. The United Nations, with NATO support is taking an increasingly firm position and not only in Sarajevo.
It is pressing ahead with the rotation of troops in Srebrenica; pressing for Tuzla airport to reopen; confronting obstacles to road convoys; and warning off the Croatian regular army from entering the war on the side of the Bosnian Croats. The North Atlantic Council decision forms part of this pattern, specifically aimed at improving the situation in Sarajevo, helping the United Nations to fulfil its mandate and contributing to pressure on the parties to end the war.
We look to the parties, particularly the Bosnian Serbs, to respond. Their aims cannot be achieved on the battlefield, or by killing and mutilating civilians. They should end the siege of Sarajevo and hand it over to the United Nations administration. Such an agreement would mark a real step towards a peaceful settlement. If the Bosnian Serbs do not so respond, they are now in no doubt of the action which NATO and the United Nations will take.
No one would pretend that this was for us or for anyone an easy decision. The risks are clear, and so are the advantages if it succeeds. It is the job of Governments to test and re-test options of this kind and decide where the British interest lies.
There is a strong British interest in maintaining the strength and solidarity of NATO. In Bosnia, our interest lies in preventing the war from spreading, in helping forward the work for a peace settlement, and in relieving the suffering of the Bosnian people. We judge that these interests of ours are best sustained by supporting the NATO decision and working for its success.

Dr. John Cunningham: The House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making a statement so quickly after the very important decision of the NATO Council yesterday. May I first associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with his comments when he says that everyone wants an end to the killing in Bosnia, especially to the senseless slaughter of innocent civilians?
I also accept what the right hon. Gentleman had to say about there being no victory on the battlefield. It is quite clear that the combatants are gearing up for a spring offensive. We should make it clear to them all that we will have no part in supporting any side in seeking to achieve a military victory; rather, we should impress on them again and again the need for a swift negotiated settlement to this awful series of conflicts.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we believe that the decison taken by NATO yesterday was the correct one? It was the correct decision in terms of ending the slaughter of innocent people in Sarajevo. It was also the correct decision in terms of reinforcing the will of the international community as expressed through the resolutions of the Security Council of the United Nations, the decisions of the Council of Ministers of the European Union and, of course, NATO itself.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the decision, if implemented, will fall within the terms of existing


resolutions of the Security Council, and that it will not be necessary for further meetings of that council to take place before the use of air strikes can be authorised?
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House why the decision was not taken, as it could and should have been, many, many months ago? The tragedy is that those, including myself, my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition and many others, who called for the use of NATO's vastly superior air power in April of last year, were condemned by many of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters sitting behind him.
The international community has come to accept, however, that that is the right decision. We had to make it clear, to the Bosnian Serbs in particular, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that we are not willing to countenance the continuing slaughter of people, as occurred last weekend in Sarajevo.
Will the right hon. Gentleman also explain what action will be taken to safeguard, in so far as it is possible, our troops already deployed in UNPROFOR and the troops of other countries during the period set out in the ultimatum—in the next 10 days. The ceasefire, which has been so quickly established by Lieutenant-General Rose—who deserves our congratulations—is welcome. If it is sustained, will NATO deploy extra troops in Sarajevo and elsewhere?
Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that efforts to open Tuzla airport, another decision of the Security Council, will be redoubled? Can he assure us that we shall take effective action to ensure that, in addition to Sarajevo, other towns and cities that have been designated as safe areas will be made safe for their citizens?
I emphasise that we agree with the support of the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister for the NATO decision. We simply regret that it has taken them so long to agree with the Governments of the United States of America, France and other countries, who have pressed for the decision for a long time. Most of all, I express the hope and the wish that the Bosnian Serbs will accept, comply with and implement the decisions that have been taken, without the need to resort finally to the use of air power. If they do not, we should not flinch from the decision to use it.

Mr. Hurd: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman supports the decision that was taken yesterday. I confirm that our advice and view is that it falls within the scope of existing Security Council resolutions and does not require a further Security Council resolution. But the first use of air power-if that has to be used-does require the authority of the United Nations Secretary-General.
The right hon. Gentleman should be in no doubt that if, at any time during the past 18 months or two years, we and our allies had felt that the tragedy could have been brought to an end through military action, we would have so acted. If we and our allies had thought that such action was practicable, we would not have been handicapped for moral or legal reasons.
In May last year, we began to discuss with our allies the possibility of the use of air power, and in August NATO publicly declared its readiness. One has to weigh the results of one's actions. We had to test and re-test, over and over again, the different possibilities and options. The NATO allies were right to conclude yesterday that we could proceed, and that the benefit of proceeding

outweighed the risk of proceeding. That is why I believe that it was right yesterday for us and our allies to take the action that we did.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to extra troops. I cannot say that extra troops may be needed in Sarajevo, or whether there will be a redeployment of existing UNPROFOR forces. UNPROFOR is short of troops, and the Secretary-General has frequently appealed for more. One reason why the safe areas resolution has not been fully implemented is shortage of troops.
We are doing our bit; I think that the right hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that. There has been no request for extra British troops. I certainly hope that the Secretary-General will be able to find contingents of the quantity and quality required.
The right hon. Gentleman was right to draw attention to the problems outside Sarajevo. One of the difficulties in the civil war has been the tendency to concentrate on Sarajevo. That is why the British troops are in action mainly in central Bosnia, relieving need, and it is the reason for the plan that the UN is now perfecting for opening up Tuzla airport. It is also why the Dutch are now in the process of moving into Srebrenica, and why it is so important not to forget the needs of places such as Mostar.

Mr. David Howell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have now reached the sombre moment when all the remaining choices open to us in this affair are fraught with the most enormous dangers? Many of us appreciate the heavy burden on the shoulders of my right hon. Friend, who has to make difficult and agonising choices. In the circumstances, the present attempt to demilitarise Sarajevo, with the backing of the ultimatum from the NATO powers, is probably the least worst choice.
Nevertheless, will my right hon. Friend continue to impress firmly upon our NATO allies three factors? The first is that this should be a very limited operation, and must not open the way to a vast operation trying to solve all the problems. The second requirement is for both the troops and the relief workers on the ground to be protected in the most thorough, systematic and sustained way possible. Thirdly, and above all, peace will come only through the combatants themselves, in a balanced situation, reaching peace and agreeing to stop the killing. They alone can end the war.

Mr. Hurd: I agree with all my right hon. Friend's points. Yesterday's decision, which I have summarised for the House, is specific to Sarajevo, and to heavy weapons in and around Sarajevo. It is addressed to all parties, not to one party alone. As I have said, the NATO countries will review its implementation in three weeks' time. That is the nature of the decision. We do not and will not pretend that by armed force we can impose a settlement. Those in arty of the warring parties who wish to draw outside Governments and armed forces into the conflict to resolve it will find themselves disappointed.
My right hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Copeland asked about the safety of our forces. For my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and for the Government as a whole, that must be a paramount concern. Of course there are plans, and have been for some time, for their protection or reinforcement if necessary.
My right hon. and learned Friend has told the House of those plans in the past. He announced last year that other


capabilities would be available as a contingency to draw on as necessary. That specifically includes NATO close air support. I do not think that the House would expect me to give more details of those plans.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Whatever differences of opinion there may have been in the past, is it not now right that the British forces who may be called upon to implement NATO's decisions should know and understand that they have the support of the whole House?
With regard to close air support, can the Secretary of State confirm that there are immediately available to NATO adequate resources to provide proper protection of forces on the ground if they come under attack? I welcome the continued commitment to the opening of Tuzla airport. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether, at yesterday's meeting, there was any discussion of the means by which, and the time scale within which, that might be achieved?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his comments. Yes, I can certainly undertake that the resources are clearly available to NATO to carry out air support and air strikes if need be, as decided yesterday. They are deployed and ready, and plans have been in place for some time as to how they may be used.
At Tuzla airport, there are three airstrips, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows. The outline scheme is that two of them should be closed and one of them should be open for humanitarian supplies. There should be monitors to ensure that those supplies are humanitarian and that the airport is not used for the entry of arms for any of the warring parties.
The United Nations is preparing that scheme. Mr. Akashi has drawn up a scheme, as I have outlined. He is now seeking to find ways in which to put it into effect.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Given the importance of the NATO alliance and of our European alliances to our defence, it must be right that my hon. Friend has agreed with our allies to take the steps which have been announced. My right hon. Friend will be aware of the deep concern in the House and in the country over the consequences of those actions, if they are allowed to get out of hand.
May I reiterate what has already been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) on the importance of keeping it a limited action, which clearly defined objectives and an exit path that is well known, so that we do not slip down the path to open war?
Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House of the possible reaction of the Russians? I saw a press announcement today that said that the Russians had called for a United Nations Security Council meeting. I would welcome anything that my right hon. Friend may be able to tell the House to reassure us that the Russians will not take any overt action on behalf of the Serbs and against the NATO allies.

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which he phrased his questions. He rightly placed a heavy accent on the importance to this country and its defence policy of the strength and solidarity of NATO, as I said in my statement. Anyone who has followed the discussions with our allies or is in the allied countries will know how many of them believe, especially the United

States, that the action agreed yesterday was a crucial test for the Atlantic allies. That consideration could not by itself have led us to support a scheme which was fatally flawed. My hon. Friend is perfectly right to stress that that must be in the scale of the balance of judgment.
I agree with him about the paramount need for the security of our forces, which includes their ability, if need be, to withdraw in good order. As I said, the plans are there. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has made plans and has to some degree announced them for that purpose. As my hon. Friend knows, we are reviewing, together with the other countries which have troops on the ground, the future of that effort. We were doing that before the past weekend. That review, which needs to be completed by the end of March, is continuing, and we are in close touch with other troop contributors.
My hon. Friend is perfectly right about the Russians. As I said in answer to the right hon. Member for Copeland it is our advice, and the view of the Secretary-General, that a new Security Council resolution is not needed for that purpose. The Secretary-General keeps in close touch with the Russian Government, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is going to Moscow on Monday. That will provide a good, unique opportunity not only to listen to President Yeltsin's view on that subject, but to impress on him the limited nature and the importance for the peace process of the decision taken by NATO yesterday.

Mr. Ernie Ross: To take up that point, it is essential that the Foreign Secretary can assure the House that the new determination by the North Atlantic Council and by those involved will be pursued to its objective if necessary. Therefore, the views of the Russians are essential.
Is it not proper that we should know, and that the Foreign Secretary should know, exactly what the Russians are saying, because we have all seen those reports? We have also seen the reaction of Radovan Karadzic, the leader of the Bosnian Serbs. He has made it clear that, as far as he is concerned, NATO does not have any role. How does the Secretary of State react to that. It is important that the House knows exactly what steps the Foreign Secretary has taken to ensure that the Russians understand that we mean to move ahead.

Mr. Hurd: We have indeed taken steps, as have our allies and the Secretary-General, to ensure that the Russians understand what is proposed. They have criticised it from outside in general terms. That is all that can accurately be said at the moment. There is no legal provision that requires their consent before NATO acts on this decision.
The House and anyone who follows this matter have been accustomed to hearing from Mr. Karadzic, possibly several times a day, for a long time now. We know how to assess the validity of each pronouncement. What counts is not so much Mr. Karadzic's pronouncements as what now happens—whether the Bosnian Serb military honour the agreement reached orally by General Rose yesterday, and whether the Bosnian Serbs comply with the requirements of the NATO decision. They have more powerful incentives to do so now than have ever existed before. That is the test.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), does my right hon. Friend agree that, just


as it is true that the NATO alliance has provided the cornerstone of our defence and security for the past 40 years, it is equally true that it has shown more suppleness and intelligence in adapting to the new world order than has any other alliance or international organisation to which we belong?
It would have been inconceivable to us that a difficult decision of this kind, discussed in close concert with our allies, which involves perhaps the most important out-of-area action that NATO has taken, should not be supported by the British Government. It is crucial to us and to the future security of our country that NATO should continue to play the kind of role for world peace and security in the new order that it played in the old order.

Mr. Hurd: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. We had a successful NATO summit, which the Prime Minister attended, in January. It was successful because it defined for the first time—more clearly than before—the role of NATO in the post-war world. At that summit, it was very clear that our main allies—and certainly the United States—felt passionately about the Bosnian issue.
If we had frustrated yesterday's decision, I do not doubt that we would have administered to ourselves—to our own defence policy—a severe shock. However, as I have said, that would not have been a conclusive argument if we had felt, on listening to our own military advice, that the proposal was unsustainable and untenable.
The point of deciding it in NATO, the point of going through the planning procedures, and the point of having the NATO council with the chairman of the Military Committee there present was precisely that the proposal could be adapted, as it was, and modified, as it was in discussion yesterday, to make it as workmanlike and professional as possible.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that the responsibility for global peace rests with the United Nations and not with NATO, which is not the policeman of the world? The danger of the Secretary-General organising air strikes against the opposition of Russia, a permament member of the Security Council, poses far greater threats for the future of the United Nations.
Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that any action of this kind must necessarily involve the commitment of far greater numbers of British forces? Is he aware that the question will arise, if the Royal Air Force bombs Serbia, whether we are at war with Serbia in law? Have any contingency plans been made to consider the political implications that may follow if the intervention in the Balkan war escalates, as clearly it could do, with very grave consequences for peace in Europe and in the world as a whole?

Mr. Hurd: The United Nations is governed by its charter. Its charter is very precise about the role of the Security Council and Secretary-General. Within the charter, the Security Council passes resolutions. They require unanimity.
Everyone concerned knows the balance of authority within the United Nations. I have seen no serious challenge to the view that I have expressed, on which the Secretary-General has acted, that he was acting perfectly properly under the resolutions already passed in writing his letter to the Secretary-General of NATO, and he would be acting perfectly properly if—and it is still an "if"—he were

asked by NATO to authorise our action for the first time. Those are the rules; that is the charter; and every member state knows about it.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about escalation and bombing Serbia. Nothing in the decision has anything to do with bombing Serbia. I told my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) that the decision is limited to Sarajevo and heavy weapons, and is addressed to both parties, so the right hon. Gentleman is flying away in fancy on that. What was the right hon. Gentleman's final point?

Mr. Benn: What contingency plans have been made in the event that the initial bombing leads to an escalation that spreads to war?

Mr. Hurd: He had a further point which I have forgotten and which he also seems to have forgotten.

Mr. Benn: War with Serbia.

Mr. Hurd: No, I have dealt with that point. There is nothing in this decision which opens that possibility.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to pay a tribute to the incredible bravery and dignity of the civilian population of Sarajevo? Does he agree that their hopes must not be dashed by another brief respite; what is on the line now is the whole credibility of NATO and the United Nations; and while accepting the heavy responsibility that my right hon. Friend bears, we need more talk of resolution and less of difficulties.

Mr. Hurd: Bosnia is full of civilians who are suffering. Some of them are Bosnian Serbs, some of them are Bosnian Croats and some of them are Bosnian Muslims. Essentially, it is a civil war that originated from Belgrade and the Bosnian Serbs, which is why they carry the heaviest responsibility, sustained to some extent b,' the old JNA—the Yugoslav national army—sustained now to some extent by Croat regular units, and sustained to a smaller extent by people who have come in from the middle east to help the Bosnian Muslims.
Through all this fighting, the civilians are the main sufferers, most visibly and most horribly in Sarajevo, but in many other cities and towns as well. That is why our initial effort on this has been designed to help to bring about peace and relieve the suffering of those civilians, to whatever community in Bosnia they belong.
As regards the spread of the war—I now remember the last question of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—we have so far succeeded in preventing the spread of war, although this was widely predicted by our critics all through this time. Of course, the situation in Croatia remains uneasy, but it is confined to a Bosnian war at present. I listed among our main British objectives limiting, preventing, the spread of the war. I believe that the decision taken yesterday, like the other decisions that have been taken, will help in that direction.

Mr. John D. Taylor: As one who firmly supported the Government's position on Bosnia over the past 18 months, I was alarmed by their change of direction yesterday—an alarming decision that can only lead the United Kingdom further into the morass of the tragedy in Bosnia. Can the Secretary of State tell me whether it is true, as has been suggested, that Russia has demanded a meeting of the Security Council, that the Bosnian Serbs have now


left the talks with the other parties involved in the conflict in Bosnia, and that those two developments have taken place within 12 hours of the NATO decision?
As NATO was originally an organisation to come to the defence of its member countries, and now that it has extended its powers to get involved in non-member countries, albeit at the invitation of the United Nations, can the Secretary of State assure us that NATO will not be hijacked by some members who might wish to create a successor to the former Austro-Hungarian empire?

Mr. Hurd: The Russians suggested a meeting of the Security Council some time ago, but that does not affect the legal position which I have defined. I cannot comment—indeed, it would be stupid to do so—on passing reports of the statements of the Bosnian Serbs, because, as I have said, their statements are always all over the place. What counts is not what they say, but what happens.
The future of NATO is a crucial point which was tackled at the previous NATO summit, following almost two years of work. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the essence and the core of NATO—this is too often forgotten—is the collective defence of its existing members. There is also now opening to the east a welcome partnership which has been offered to countries in central and eastern Europe. That also is crucial to the credibility of NATO in many member states.
There was agreement and a strong feeling that NATO should be ready and equipped out of area to handle situations which the member states thought NATO could contribute to helping to resolve. That is limited in the case of Bosnia, because no one suggests that NATO can impose a peace. Anyone on the ground or any member of the warring parties who believes that is deluded. Within the limitations which were laid down first by NATO in August last year, and which were reaffirmed in January, we believe that the decision is a proper use of the authority of NATO.

Sir Terence Higgins: I welcome and strongly support my right hon. Friend's statement. Is it not the case that positive action should have been taken 18 months ago? Is it not also the case that, by threatening repeatedly to take action and then doing nothing, the credibility of the international community has been undermined? Hopefully, my right hon. Friend's statement this afternoon will do something to restore that position.
On a more fundamental level, how can it be right to take no international action to defend a sovereign state while seeking to deny that state means of defending itself?

Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend and I differ on the history, but that will be resolved by an historian. When an historian looks at the archives, he will find over and over again that the possibilities of military action were considered, not just by us but by the allies. He will find the advice which we received.
My right hon. Friend has been in government, and he knows how these matters work. He will know how advice is proffered, and he will know the responsibility which falls on those who neglect that advice and who set off on enterprises to gain applause without a proper judgment of the consequences. That is why, in all our discussions in different places—particularly during the past few days—

we have put the emphasis on the need for military advice. That is why the decision was taken in NATO and not anywhere else.
Although it is common currency at the moment, I do not believe that history will find that opportunities in the past were neglected. That is a matter for the past. The balance of judgment for the interests of Britain and of the alliance as a whole now fall in favour of the decision which was taken yesterday.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that he is engaged in another Government U-turn, and that he has done it with a look on his face which suggests that his heart is not in it? The right hon. Gentleman has told us precisely what the new rules of engagement are—they are contrary to those which he has mentioned previously—and he has explained how the British troops and NATO are to get deeper into this morass.
Surely it is incumbent upon the Foreign Secretary to be able to tell us exactly what the rules of disengagement are? We want to know precisely what will happen if the plan does not work. Can he tell us? Is it not certain that the television pundits and chattering classes who have guided him towards his decision will not be there to give him advice when he needs it?

Mr. Hurd: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point, but I do not accept his role as the protector of either my conscience or my intelligence. I will not accept him in that role.
Since May, and certainly in public since August, we have accepted the possibility of the use of air power. As I said earlier, and have said often, if we had believed all through this time that, by some simple military action, the tragedy could have been brought to an end, any Government, and certainly this Government, would have taken it. But that has not been the position.
I have spoken often of the possible use of air power. What Governments have to do is test and re-test the practical possibilities: whether a particular operation would bring more benefit than risk. That is the process which has occurred again this week. It did not come as a U-turn or a surprise. The texts and decisions which the House has heard about and discussed before now have been brought into practical operation because it seemed to NATO as a whole, and certainly to the British Government, that the benefits of the decision outweighed the risks.

Mr. Michael Colvin: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the NATO members consider the war in Bosnia to be a civil war, an international conflict, or both? Will the exclusion zone apply to all the belligerents, and in particular the invading Serbian army?

Mr. Hurd: We know this to be a civil war, but as I think I said earlier, it is a civil war which originated in the ambitions of Serbia and the encouragement of the Bosnian Serbs. It is sustained to some extent by Croat regular forces and, to a much smaller extent, by people—commonly called mujaheddin—who have come in to help the Muslims. But it is essentially a war between Bosnian Croats, Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Serbs. The NATO decision does not talk about the origin of the fighting. It


talks about the two main forces involved in the Sarajevo area—not the Croats in this case, but the Bosnian Serbs and the Bosnian Government Muslim forces.

Mr. Bruce George: As someone said, this is deja vu all over again. We have issued threats to the Bosnian Serbs on several occasions and not implemented them. Can the Secretary of State give us a guarantee that, if the United Nations resolutions are not complied with, we will not do as we have done many times before and back away? Secondly, can he offer guarantees that, if the Bosnian Serbs comply—their masters have known when to bend—the enthusiasm will not subside when the heat is off, perhaps in a couple of weeks, and the Serbs return to their usual task of bombing innocent civilians?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman mistakes the position. We have said several times, notably in August last year, that NATO would be ready to use air power to defend UNPROFOR forces if attacked. They have not been attacked. We said that we would be ready to consider using NATO air power to prevent the strangulation of Sarajevo. That was the phrase that NATO used.
Yesterday it was decided to use air power for that purpose, in the detail that I described to the House. I do not think that the Bosnian Serbs, or anyone, is in any doubt that, unless the ultimatum and the requirements are met, force will be used within the limitations—they are very clear—which the NATO decision set out yesterday.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. We must now move on.

Health Service (London)

The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a detailed statement to update the House on changes to strengthen the health service in London.
We set out the direction of policy last February. We have followed that policy through with the determination which we promised. I pay tribute to all those who have played a part. My announcements today take us a further significant step along the road that we charted then.
The heart of our policy is to improve primary and community care. That will relieve pressure on hospitals, thus helping to reduce waiting times and give Londoners the high-quality services common elsewhere. To this end we have committed substantial investment of £170 million over the next six years.
Within the areas of greatest need, well over 100 schemes are going ahead this year. That means improvements to general practitioners' premises, new health centres, more community nurses, and better services for the mentally ill. Those schemes will assist the dedicated doctors, nurses and support staff working in often difficult circumstances. In addition, we are exploring with the professions ways further to improve the numbers and skills of primary care staff working in the capital.
We are determined to build on that. I can therefore tell the House that the Government will double new investment in London's primary and community care next year to £85 million. We have also agreed with the medical profession two new arrangements for financing general practice premises in the London initiative zone.
I have today laid before Parliament regulations giving family health services authorities—FHSAs—a new power to acquire, develop and dispose of land and property within the London intiative zone for the provision of general practice premises. That new arrangement will enable FHSAs to play a greater part in initiating and co-ordinating developments with their local practices, to act as an engine of change and to promote joint ventures with the independent sector.
We are also increasing FHSA discretion within the initiative zone over the level of improvement grants payable to GPs to develop existing practice premises. From today, the current ceiling for improvement grant reimbursement is being raised from 66 per cent to 90 per cent. That will offer greater flexibility to support projects which could not be achieved through other means. Both new powers will be available until 31 March 1996 and will be subject to review before then. Further details are being published separately today.
Investing in primary care means that we must unlock the resources tied up in the high overhead costs of London hospitals. Subsidising those costs year in, year out is not right in London and is not fair to the rest of the country. We have to invest in modern care, in London as elsewhere, not sustain a pattern of services which no longer meets current and future patient needs. That is why there must be change to London hospitals.
I begin with those hospitals which have applied to become national health service trusts. We have agreed a new central funding mechanism with the eight research-oriented postgraduate special health authorities, to be effective from April. Those arrangements are sensible and


fair. They put the SHAs on a more equitable footing with other hospitals and will sustain high quality research and development.
Against that background, the Moorfields eye hospital, the Bethlem Royal and the Maudsley hospitals and the Royal Brompton national heart and lung hospital will all become NHS trusts from 1 April.
There has been much speculation about the future of the Royal Marsden. I am pleased to announce that it too will become an NHS trust from April. Together with the generous initial funding which, as a former SHA, the Marsden will receive, that decision gives it every opportunity to shape its own future, responding to patient choice.
I have not been able to approve the trust application from the national hospital for neurology and neurosurgery because it could not meet the financial requirements for a stand-alone trust. The hospital will continue as an SHA, while it explores options for safeguarding its highly valued teaching and research work.
Similarly, the Eastman dental hospital has not been approved because of concerns about financial viability. It too will continue as an SHA while options for its future are explored. The Chelsea and Westminster hospital has applied to be a trust in its own right. Consultation on that will conclude in March.
The Hammersmith and Queen Charlotte's SHA, together with the Charing Cross hospital, recently applied to become a joint trust. I shall take a decision on that, following statutory public consultation which ends in March.
Discussions are taking place between the Hammersmith and Charing Cross hospitals to bring together their considerable service, academic and teaching strengths. Both recognise the benefits from merging their facilities on to a single site. Sir David Phillips, former chairman of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, and Sir Rex Richards, a former vice-chancellor of Oxford university, are undertaking a special study to identify measures which would be needed to maintain that research excellence in the event of services being consolidated on one site. We welcome those developments.
I have agreed to establish a new trust incorporating the Royal London, St. Bartholomew's and the London chest hospitals. Bringing together these three hospitals, which encompass major accident and emergency provision, local acute specialist services and teaching and research, offers a great opportunity to establish a first-class institution serving the City and east London. The new trust will take forward decisions about the future location of services across the three sites.
University college London hospitals originally submitted a joint trust application with the Royal National throat, nose and ear hospital trust. In response to public consultation, the region is now exploring the option of UCLH going forward as a trust in its own right, with the RNTNE trust continuing separately. I shall make a final decision in March following consultation on the revised application.
At present the UCLH group is scattered across several sites. It needs to consolidate services into fewer buildings. A number of options are currently being explored. Any

proposals need to safeguard and strengthen UCLH's position as an international centre of excellence in service, teaching and medical research.
The Great Ormond Street hospital for sick children will remain where it is. It too will become a trust from April. This decision provides it with an opportunity to build on its worldwide reputation. Separate management arrangements will be made for the Queen Elizabeth hospital, Hackney, within its local community.
Sir Bernard Tomlinson's analysis that current and future patient demand cannot sustain four major hospitals in south London is widely supported. Both Lewisham hospital and King's are securely established, each serving its own local population, and both are benefiting from new capital investment.
By establishing Guy's and St. Thomas's as a single trust last April, the Government signalled their determination to bring to an end the duplication of services between the two sites. This is not just a necessary response to the gradual withdrawal of patients that the trust faces. The trust's clinicians at both Guy's and St. Thomas's have argued strongly that patient care will be improved by concentrating clinical services one one site. This view is storngly endorsed by the main purchasers.
Strong arguments were put forward in favour of each site. After careful consideration, our judgment was that, overall, the St. Thomas's site offers a better location and environment for a hospital and serves a bigger local population. The need to safeguard what is the largest and one of the busiest accident and emergency departments in London was also crucial to the decision. We therefore intend to ask the trust to pursue proposals that, over time, will concentrate acute and specialist hospital services at the St. Thomas's site. As well as clinical teaching accommodation, a strong research presence, in conjunction with acute clinical services, will be retained on the St. Thomas's site.
Under these proposals, the Guy's site would offer a wide range of modern hospital and health services focused on the needs of the local community. As we have undertaken elsewhere, an accident and emergency department would remain at the site until alternative facilities were developed and were working satisfactorily, particularly at King's College hospital and Lewisham.
We also intend to build on the considerable academic and research strengths at Guy's. We strongly support moves to integrate the united medical and dental schools with King's college. Bringing these elements together builds up to an attractive vision for the future of the Guy's site. State-of-the-art local health services would exist alongside a major new centre of teaching and research. This proposal offers the oportunity for Guy's to evolve along new and imaginative lines. It would become a high-quality health and academic campus, serving local patient needs, training tomorrow's doctors, dentists and nurses and exploring the boundaries of medicine.
I have asked Sir Tim Chessells, chairman of the London Implementation Group, to take forward this work. He will bring together the key parties, including the main purchaser, the trust board, UMDS, King's College London and the special trustees of both hospitals.
It is also proposed to develop both the Guy's/St. Thomas's trust and King's college hospital as specialist cardiac centres for south-east London and Kent. For neurosciences, a strong new centre would be developed, based around King's, building on the links with the



institute of psychiatry at the Maudsley. In order to strengthen both these proposed new specialist centres, cardiac and neurosciences would be transferred from the Brook hospital, which is in very poor condition. Statutory consultation will now go ahead on these proposals.
In the light of this, discussions between my Department and the Ministry of Defence are well advanced about the possible sale of the Queen Elizabeth military hospital, Woolwich to the Greenwich Healthcare trust. The aim would be for this hospital to replace the Brook and, eventually, most of Greenwich district general hospital. Subject to settling some outstanding issues, I hope that the matter can be put out for consultation in the spring or early summer.
In south-west London, the regional health authority has completed some work on the distribution of services, the results of which have been made available to local health authorities and hospitals. It will now be for those locally charged with assessing and meeting health needs to take into consideration the effects, over time, of proposed changes in central London and the views of those living in the area served before deciding whether local service changes should be proposed for public consultation. Subject to that process, I do not anticipate significant change to the current pattern of hospital services in the near future.
Finally, I am pleased to announce that I have approved two further trusts in London whose applications were referred last year: Newham acute hospital, and the Tavistock and Portman clinics. Both will become trusts on 1 April.
Today's announcements represent considerable further progress toward reshaping London's health services. Of course, much remains to be done. We will maintain the pressure for change and improvement.
Most of London's hospitals are now NHS trusts. Together with local health authorities, they will take change forward at a local level. Their decisions must reflect the needs of patients, the importance of consolidating London's excellence in specialist services, teaching and research, and essential strategic issues such as maintaining comprehensive accident and emergency cover.
We shall also continue to pay attention to the needs of staff, particularly the arrangements for helping displaced staff find new jobs within the NHS, which are working well.
I have announced today further measures to enable London's hospitals to respond to the changing demands of their patients. I have announced eight new NHS trusts for the capital. I have announced a doubling in new investment in primary care and a substantial programme to improve the local health services which Londoners need. We recognise, as others recognise, that change in London is needed and long overdue. My statement today is proof of our commitment to shape London's health service to match London's needs, now and into the 21st century.

Mr. David Blunkett: If anyone needed justification for supporting the proposals in our document "Health 2000", the Secretary of State has just given it. Does she agree with Sir Bernard Tomlinson's comment that
planning and the internal market are incompatible"?
The announcement of eight new trusts this afternoon spells not a new way forward for London but a disaster in terms of further rationalisation and closure.
Over the past 12 months, since the Secretary of State responded to the Tomlinson inquiry, has there not been uncertainty and demoralisation throughout the capital? Does the Secretary of State agree that neither local and national representatives nor the people of London have played a part in the proposals put before the House this afternoon? Just a few weeks ago the Secretary of Slate announced outside the House that she had saved University College hospital from the effects of the internal market. She also announced the effective demise of Bart's. This afternoon, she has made an announcement along similar lines about proposals for trusts and rationalisation that will inevitably lead to less service and less provision for people in the capital.
Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us this afternoon what happened to the promises that were made a year ago about improvements in primary and community care in London. Will she tell us why there has been a 2 per cent. drop in the number of GPs employed in the London Implementation Group zone since the reorganisation started in London; why there has been a 5 per cent. drop in the number of health visitors; why 319,500 people are on the waiting lists of the four Thames regions; and why in the past quarter alone the number of people waiting for more than a year has increased by 13,340—a 12 per cent. increase? Is there room for closure and rationalisation with such figures?
Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us about the planned changes to Guy's. Did not the Government parade Guy's hospital as the flagship trust of the Tory party? Has not that flagship trust been holed below the water line this afternoon by the Secretary of State? Was not the captain of the flagship trust thrown a lifebelt with a £130,000 golden handshake while 2,000 people working at those hospitals are threatened with redundancy and redeployment? Is not it a fact that the £140 million that was spent on the unit at Philip Harris house will now be set aside and used in a completely different way from that in the proposals? Will the Secretary of State tell us whether £44 million of the £214 million that it will cost to reconfigure the two hospitals will have to be repaid to the charities that raised money for the hospital?
Is it not a fact that the Secretary of State's announcement this afternoon of a trust for the Royal Marsden hospital is not a lifeline but a hangman's noose? Is it not a fact that that great teaching and research hospital, with its world-renowned cancer unit, will be finished not by any announcement by the Secretary of State, but by the impact of the internal market? Will she make a statement this afternoon to clarify that she will order the two major purchasing authorities to continue buying the services of the Royal Marsden hospital? If she does not, the Royal Marsden will gradually be strangled, as will other hospitals, by the operation of the system.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is not the good news announced by her but the bad news implemented by the market that really matters? It is similar to the announcement on pit closures that was made by the President of the Board of Trade: announcements are made that give the impression of saving services, while the reality gradually strangles them on the ground. Rather than a transfer of resources, a pulling forward of money to pretend that new money has been announced this afternoon for next year's primary care investment, would not planned change and rational investment in primary care be a real improvement in primary services?
Should it not be for a London regional health authority to plan that development and care? Would not the involvement of local people bring accountability? Would not a fresh start for London bring clarity for the years ahead, not uncertainty and demoralisation? Should not it be the Secretary of State's duty this afternoon to announce that things will not once again be put off until the end of March, and lift the threat from those who receive the services and those who deliver them, to give London the world-class services that it deserves?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The House might like to know that the Prime Minister has just received a message saying that the two Members of Parliament in Somalia are now out of the hands of the people who were holding them, are back with their Action Aid team and will be flying back tomorrow.

Mrs. Bottomley: As ever, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) is long on discussion papers, but cannot face a decision. London needs decisions.
Tomlinson set out a programme for change; we have followed that programme carefully, and have been involved in a probably unprecedented consultation and discussion, not only with the purchasing authorities which are charged with seeking the best interests of local patients—local people—but with the universities and research institutes. According to Paddy Ross, head of the Joint Consultants Committee,
As a result of meaningful consultations they"—
that is Ministers—
have produced a Government response the broad thrust of which is supported by the medical profession at national level.
I pay tribute to all the distinguished members of the medical and research community who have participated in the effort to draw together the evidence necessary for the taking of some extremely difficult and sensitive decisions—decisions which, however, had to be made. That is the difference between being in government and being a permanent Opposition party.
According to the further policy document produced by the hon. Member for Brightside, the policy for London should be
a vision of a new health service built from the bottom, with primary and community care as the focus of our thinking.
Those are the hon. Gentleman's words; they are also the words that describe the commitment that we have demonstrated today.
Like other Members of Parliament, the hon. Gentleman will receive in his postbag details of the 127 primary care schemes that are already under way. There are 350 additional nurses, 81 new paramedic and counselling staff and 23 new "hospital at home" schemes in the London area; £7·5 million is being spent through the voluntary sector—quite apart from the extra money that I have announced today.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the difficult decision concerning the Guy's/St. Thomas's trust. It is agreed that those hospital services must be concentrated on a single site. The purpose of the new building on the Guy's site was to provide health services, research and teaching; those services will continue to be provided. The special trustees,

the dean of the medical school and representatives of King's College will be involved with Sir Tim Chessells in deciding on the details of how that balance can best be achieved to serve the needs of the future. Our vision, however, is of a campus concentrating on learning, research and health services, which will play an important part in training future generations to work with and for the health service.
My announcement sets the strategic direction for the future. I well understand the difficulties of the staff involved; but, if we spend 20 per cent. of the money on 15 per cent. of the people—if London has one doctor to 500 people, while the rest of the country has one doctor to 1,100—that is evidence that no Government can responsibly refuse to address. My announcement has set the direction for the future: it means better health services for Londoners.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I must strike a balance between this very important statement, another statement and the equally important debate that follows. I therefore seek the co-operation of all hon. Members—including Government Front Benchers—when I ask for brisk questions and brisk answers. That will enable me to call as many hon. Members as possible.

Mrs. Marion Roe: Along with millions of Londoners, I welcome the decisions that my right hon. Friend has announced to remove uncertainty from the future of London's health services—especially the decision to invest £85 million of new money in local health services in areas of need next year. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the lack of proper primary and community care puts additional strain on hospital services, and increases waiting times?

Mrs. Bottomley: I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend has said. One of London's dilemmas is caused by the fact that nearly 50 per cent. of those who use accident and emergency departments in hospitals are people who, in other parts of the country, would have used the services provided by their family doctors. That is one of the difficulties involving discharging patients from hospitals. If we can improve primary care, it will be better for patients to be seen by their family doctors and the practised teams who know and have stewardship of families for a lifetime.

Ms Liz Lynne: Does the Secretary of State agree that, on the same day that UNISON announced the demoralisation of staff within the NHS, her announcement and the way in which she has handled London hospitals will increase that demoralisation? What weight does she give to the advice from the independent reviews on specialist services for London, given that she seems to have ignored that advice and the views of Londoners about Guy's hospital?
Finally, I welcome the money that she has put into primary care. It is a great service for London, but I should like to know where it will come from. Is it new money, and will it really help people who need acute beds when primary services cannot help them?

Mrs. Bottomley: There is no doubt that UNISON staff feel demoralised because they have seen the Labour party's documents. The hon. Lady referred to the specialty reviews. There were research views and specialty reviews


and the interests of purchasers were taken into account. The decision on Guy's and St. Thomas's was finely balanced, but there was strong agreement among the clinicians on both sites.
When my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health visited both hospitals, it was clear that they wanted services to be concentrated on one site. It is a difficult judgment. The strong view of the purchasers was that it should be the St. Thomas's site, and the London ambulance service advocated the important part played by that accident and emergency department. I shall not conceal from the hon. Lady the judgment and balance in that decision, but a decision had to be taken.
As for the extra money, the hon. Lady will know that, unlike the Opposition, who had to edit the price tag out of their policy document—after a row with the shadow Chancellor the £6 billion price tag disappeared up the chimney—we were able to—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I have asked that hon. Members refer only to the statement and that they get brisk answers.

Mrs. Bottomley: The Opposition do not want to hear about the £1·6 billion extra for the national health service this year, or £83 per household.

Mr. David Congdon: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which strikes a good balance between central direction and letting the internal market decide the pattern of provision in London. Many Londoners recognise that there is an inequitable distribution of resources between London and the rest of the country. In implementing the changes, will she not lose sight of the fact that resources are also inequitable between inner and outer London and that outer London must get its share of resources?

Mrs. Bottomley: I am well aware of the pressure from those in outer London and the concern that decisions on inner London should be brought to a conclusion. We have to move as fast as we reasonably can, taking all views into account.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Will the Secretary of State confirm that her close friend and colleague Lord McAlpine, the president of St. Bartholomew's medical college, has persistently and savagely criticised her mad proposal to close the accident and emergency unit at Bart's? Is she aware that leading counsel has advised that the decision was improper and unlawful and such that no reasonable person could take it, and that she is about to be brought before the courts?

Mrs. Bottomley: I am well aware that each of the great hospitals in London has supporters and those who would champion its cause, but I am also aware that it is necessary to take decisions. No change is no option, and I would urge the hon. Gentleman to read the speech on the subject by the Opposition spokesman in the House of Lords before Christmas. She said then that when the changes to Bart's and the Royal London hospital were implemented, could we please make sure that they were properly funded. Those changes needed to be taken across London? I can also report—[Interruption.] I add my own words at the end. It is a point of record. The point was made about the need to move to the Royal London hospital, but the changes are necessary. I urge the hon. Gentleman to speak to some of

those at St. Bartholomew's whose vision for the future includes working with a stronger university hospital treating the needs of future patients.

Mr. Matthew Carrington: My right hon. Friend will know that Charing Cross hospital in my constituency has strong local support. Although the merger with Hammersmith hospital is popular, Charing Cross hospital has modern buildings, a superb location and the convenience of a heavily used accident and emergency department. It is also well supported by purchasers and local GPs. When the decision is taken about putting the hospitals on to a single site, will my right hon. Friend ensure that patients' needs are put first in deciding the location of hospital facilities in west London?

Mrs. Bottomley: Indeed. My hon. Friend is a great champion of Charing Cross hospital. It is an extremely popular hospital that was favourably reported on in the specialty reviews. He will know that work is under way to examine the configuration of services and the possibility of Charing Cross and Hammersmith hospitals coming together as a trust.

Mr. Peter Shore: The Secretary of State made a long statement, but she omitted several important facts. What is her estimate of the loss of beds in London hospitals during the implementation period? How many skilled doctors and other medical professions will no longer be employed in London hospitals? What is her estimate of the size of the London hospital waiting list during the implementation period?

Mrs. Bottomley: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that London has about 3·9 acute beds per thousand compared with about 2·5 elsewhere. The change of use of London hospitals and the increasing use of day surgery rather than in-patient admission mean that the need for beds in London is changing fast. Tomlinson estimated a loss of about 2,000 beds over a longer period, but I would not want to put a figure to the precise numbers because we have to match provision to the needs of services. Similarly, we envisage an increase in the number of people employed in the community and primary care sectors.
We anticipate having fewer health staff in London. That is why we set up the London clearing house to help people to find jobs elsewhere in the country if they are no longer necessary in the London health service.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: It is good to have a boost for primary care services. People in Eltham want to have staff at the Brook hospital working on the other side of Shooter's hill, if the Queen Elizabeth hospital can be brought into national health service use. There are still some who are unhappy that the neurosciences should go to Denmark hill rather than coming into the Guy's/St. Thomas's collection of surgery specialties.

Mrs. Bottomley: I am aware of my close and hon. Friend's constituency interest and the need for the uncertainty to be brought to an end. I also understand his point about neurosciences. Tomlinson's report and the research reviews strongly commended the establishment of a world centre of neurosciences at Denmark hill, with the neurosciences going to King's hospital, working closely with the Maudsley in the same location.

Mr. Clive Soley: Is the Secretary of State aware that, although there is strong support for the


combination of Hammersmith and Charing Cross hospitals, there is severe doubt that we can squeeze a quart into a pint pot by closing down one of the sites and transferring all the services to the other site? Will she give an undertaking that, if there is a decline in patient care, she will ensure that the services are available on the two sites if that is appropriate? When will she take that decision? Frankly, the effects on staff morale at Charing Cross and Hammersmith are severe.

Mrs. Bottomley: The purpose of change in London is to improve services for patients and to establish a better balance between the specialty services, the routine hospital services and primary care. Change will not take place unless and until it leads to improvements for patients in London—decreasing waiting times and overall improvements in health care.
The trust application is out to consultation. I am not able to make a decision about that until March, when the consultation finishes.

Mr. Roger Sims: My right hon. Friend will recognise that there will be disappointment in south-east London and north-west Kent at the decision to concentrate the specialist and acute hospital services on the St. Thomas's rather than the Guy's site, but it was inevitable, when the trust was unable to reach a conclusion, that she would have to make the ultimate decision. I accept that the arguments were finely balanced, and I congratulate her on having the courage to take that decision and remove the uncertainty, which has prevailed for too long.
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that there is no possibility of those changes being effected overnight—that they will be gradual, and that they will take account of the understandable worries of the staff, many of whom are highly qualified people?

Mrs. Bottomley: I can confirm that those changes will take place gradually over a number of years. They are highly complex; a great number of organisations will be involved, but there is a need for a strategic direction. I refer my hon. Friend to the comments of the South East London health authority, which said today that the decision to centralise in-patient services at St. Thomas's hospital is the right one. It said that it
reduces the amount … spent on costly overheads and allows more to be spent on direct patient care.
Similarly, the London ambulance service says:
The department at St. Thomas's is an essential link in the network of Accident and Emergency Services in London. Both its strategic position and its accessibility argued strongly for its retention.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: In respect of Newham general hospital, which is to become a so-called trust, does the Secretary of State agree that the quality of its care in future and its very existence depend on its success in commercial competition? Therefore, the "working for patients", in the words of the White Paper, will not take place—or indeed for the people of Newham, because the staff there will be working for cash and perhaps for their very jobs. Is not such a situation incompatible with the principles of Christianity? Will the right hon. Lady come to Newham and debate that principle before an audience of representatives of the people and of people who work in the health service?

Mrs. Bottomley: Newham's becoming a trust means that it is more able to behave more flexibly to solve its problems to be committed to local patients. NHS trusts are, and remain, part of the national health service, delivering health care to all on the basis of clinical need, not ability to pay. The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the nature of NHS trusts, and does so wilfully. Throughout the country, NHS trusts are delivering more care, reducing waiting times, improving the quality of care.

Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: I welcome my right hon. Friend's—

Mr. Spearing: See your vicar.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I welcome my right hon. Friend's resolve to bring uncertainty to an end; as we have heard, she has been travelling through a political and a medical minefield. Although I recognise that provincial hospitals are developing an ever-increasing standard of care, will she give the House an assurance that the speed of rationalisation of hospitals in London will not put at risk their excellence and their worldwide reputation?

Mrs. Bottomley: Yes, Madam Speaker. The hospitals, the universities and the research institutes need to know the direction of strategic change. It is not right to move with undue haste. The intention is to consolidate and strengthen, to improve services for Londoners and to improve the centres of research expertise.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Is the Secretary of State aware that the cost of her failure, in her own words, to provide high standards of primary care for Londoners that are "common elsewhere" is being paid by Londoners? I give as an example one of my constituents, a homeless man, who is suffering from gangrene. Can the right hon. Lady give here today a firm guarantee to all Londoners that the already limited primary health facilities for their needs will not be reduced by what seems to me a quite scandalous scythe through such existing health care as is provided for them by London's hospitals?

Mrs. Bottomley: I give an unequivocal guarantee, and the hon. Lady will find in her mail a list of the 127 new primary care schemes that exist in London already. There will be more next year, as we have announced that an extra £85 million will be spent on primary care in London. As a result, there will be more doctors, more practice nurses, more hospital-at-home schemes, and more community psychiatric nurses, and better primary and family care services will be delivered in practice.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend accept that her courageous statement today shows that she understands the changes that are coming over the national health service—for example, the enormous numbers of the population who have moved out of London into constituencies such as mine and the shift from acute care to primary care, showing that the Opposition's concentration on such matters as the number of beds is merely a further indication of the backward-looking attitude that they have adopted towards her reforms?

Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend. The Labour party counts anything other than patients, patient needs and the improvement in the quality of their care.
My hon. Friendis right about people leaving London. When the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing)


said, "See your vicar," I thought that he wanted me to discuss the Templeman report with my vicar, because I noticed that the Templeman report, only the other day, suggested that two thirds of the churches in the City should close because the population has left.

Mr. Tony Banks: In view of the fact that Newham is almost a Tory-free zone, will the right hon. Lady give an assurance that she will not pack the new trust at Newham with Tory stooges? Will she also answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) about how much of the £44 million from charities that went to Guy's will have to be handed back?

Mrs. Bottomley: If the hon. Gentleman has the names of people who he wants to be considered for the new trust, I know that my right hon. Friend will consider them. The Labour party has given many names with great success. Helene Hayman, for example, is chairman of the trust at Whittington hospital; Julia Neuberger, a member of the Liberal Democrat party, is an excellent trust chairman. We want, as ever, people who are committed to the national health service, who are prepared to take difficult decisions and who are determined to improve patient care. We appreciate them on the trusts.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if implemented, the Labour party proposals to abolish the private sector for health will cost a great deal of money, which will come from the remainder of the health service?

Mr. Keith Mans: Yes, £90 million.

Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend says about £90 million. Would not that proposal, if implemented, slow down her success in getting people off trolleys in hospitals such as Ealing hospital? May I have her assurance that hospitals will not be closed while there is any chance of people having to be put on to trolleys or into emergency situations?

Mrs. Bottomley: I think that the memories of Barbara Castle echo around with the policy document today. The vendetta against the private sector is something that people are used to hearing about from the Labour party. Private patients actually benefit the national health service. My hon. Friend is right. No decisions will be made unless and until it is safe to make them.
My hon. Friend rightly referred to the unacceptable situation of patients being left for too long on trolleys. That cannot be tolerated. The chief executive has written to make that quite clear. There is a major investment programme in a great number of accident and emergency units across London and we are determined to ensure, not only that they are better organised within the hospital, but that some of the left-wing Labour authorities co-operate better with the discharge arrangements.

Mr. Banks: Name one.

Ms Harriet Harman: Would the right hon. Lady not insult my constituents by implying that the reason that they oppose her plans is that they have some old-fashioned and irrational attachment to the idea of measuring the success of the national health service by the number of hospital beds? Does she not realise that people in south-east London are worried about the plans that will

result in reduced numbers of hospital beds because they are worried that she will cut the hospital beds before the GP services and the social services improve and, therefore, people such as my constituent, an elderly woman who was on a trolley for 18 hours in King's College hospital last week, will continue to wait in unsatisfactory conditions?

Mrs. Bottomley: This is like the old days. As ever, the hon. Lady fails to welcome the good news. I should have thought that she would welcome the fact that neurosciences are to be moved to King's, which will be a world class centre of excellence. The hon. Lady has never been able to do anything other than talk down the health service, which is a tragedy for King's and for the service itself. The only good news is that she is no longer the shadow spokesman on health.
The hon. Lady should check her facts more carefully. The reason that the lady was left on a trolley at King's, which was unacceptable, was that 40 to 50 patients were waiting to be discharged into the community. The social services in London have received a 75 per cent. increase in the money given to them for community care, and part of it is for them to arrange with hospitals for the discharge of patients. We look to them to deliver.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that critics of trust hospitals should examine the record of hospitals such as the Royal Free, which has dramatically increased the number of patients treated and substantially reduced waiting lists? Does not that provide hope for the people of Newham?

Mrs. Bottomley: It certainly does. The Royal Free has done a magnificent job and the chairman deserves great credit. My hon. Friend will know that the chairman of the Royal Free is about to become the regional health authority chairman for the south Thames area. That bodes well for all of South Thames.

Ms Kate Hoey: May I welcome the part of the statement which continues to allow an accident and emergency unit at St. Thomas's and thus permits the hospital to operate most effectively? Does the Secretary of State agree that the people who are making the nasty point that the only reason St. Thomas's will retain its accident and emergency unit is that it is near the House of Commons are doing a great disservice to the thousands of people in my area who have signed petitions, campaigned and worked with dignity to ensure that their hospital would remain open? Will she confirm that 80 per cent. of the Philip Harris unit will still be used for the purpose for which it was originally planned?

Mrs. Bottomley: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. It was an extremely difficult judgment because the arguments are balanced. I well understand the disappointment of some people at the Guy's site that the decision did not go their way. I can say only that I have been completely direct about the basis on which the decision was made. I believe that there is a great vision for the future at the Guy's site. Indeed, only today the principal of King's College, London said how he welcomed the announcement. He said that it would
enable a merger between UMDS and King's College to go ahead with a … commitment to the location at the Guy's site not only of basic medical and dental and life sciences teaching and research, but eventually of the whole of the merged multi faculty College.
That is a very exciting vision for the Guy's/Thomas's trust.

Mr. Rupert Allason: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Will she confirm that it can be interpreted as very good news for people in the west country and those who use provincial hospitals because there will be a switch of resources away from London to meet the greater need of the provinces and, in particular, of the west country?

Mrs. Bottomley: I can indeed confirm that, over time, it will be possible to have a fairer distribution of resources across the country. At the moment, 20 per cent. of the money is spent on 15 per cent. of the people. Areas outside London support London services to the tune of more than £100 million, a situation that cannot continue indefinitely. We are bringing it to an end.

Ms Tessa Jowell: Will the Secretary of State make available to the House the papers and documentation which informed her recommendations? Are the recommend-dations supported by the London Implementation Group, the four Thames regions and inner-London purchasers?

Mrs. Bottomley: In due course, the programme will go out to consultation before final decisions are made. Management documents were available. There has been a great deal of discussion and debate, not only about the cost, the service configuration and the need to preserve specialties. All the information that is necessary for public consultation will be available before the final decisions are made because we are bound by public consultation. What is important is that a decision is made.
Initially, the trust board provided a number of options. One that had seemed persuasive was to take no decision. At present, the subsidy to the Guy's/Thomas's trust runs at £18 million every year and is rising. The clinicians made it quite clear to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State when he visited each site that they wished for a single-site option, so further work was needed to ensure that we faced the decision—difficult though it was—to set the strategic direction for the future.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I must make it clear that hon. Members who have not heard the entire statement but have come in late will not be called. That is not an innovation. The House will recall that I have made that statement several times, and I intend to hold to it.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: Will the Secretary of State desist from her shabby trick of playing London off against the rest of the country? It is singularly unconvincing in view of the havoc also being wreaked in cities other than London. Will she clarify her bland statement that the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Hackney is to be incorporated in local services? Does not she mean that provision for sick children in London will be weakened? Was not the Queen Elizabeth part of the Great Ormond street hospital for sick children?

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Lady is right in the sense that because of medical advance it is no longer necessary to have the great number of hospitals and beds that were

appropriate in many city centres in the past. There has been a dramatic investment in primary care as care increasingly moves into the community. That change is common, in London and elsewhere. London is especially complicated because of the input of a number of colleges, universities and research institutes.
As for the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Hackney, the best way to organise services for children in a local community is with the other hospitals in that local community. Great Ormond street will continue as a specialty hospital of very high renown and the Queen Elizabeth hospital will continue its tradition of serving the local community. It is a hospital I know well.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Secretary of State accept that the people at Guy's feel not disappointment but anger and a sense of betrayal about the biggest U-turn in the history of this Administration's health policy? The Administration launched a flagship and constructed a state-of-the-art building but a couple of years later they evacuate the flagship and say that the building can be kept but with hardly any beds. The figures do not justify the Secretary of State's conclusion and she has not shown them to anyone. They are secret, but will she now reveal them?
She knows as well as I do that the reality of today's decision is that it was made because of pressure from the establishment. She would not take on people here or in Whitehall who would allow St. Thomas's to be closed. She is once again allowing the people in the south-east of London—the people, not the establishment—to suffer so that she can come to a brave decision while those people receive a worse service. That is unacceptable and disgraceful, and the anger that she is hearing this afternoon is only the beginning.

Mrs. Bottomley: I have made it clear that I understand that there will be disappointment at the Guy's site but a decision has to be made. I set out clearly the basis on which the judgment was made, which included the fact that there was a larger local population, the London ambulance service's strong views and the overall ability of the two sites to provide for alternative needs. There is a vision at the Guy's site for a research campus, a campus of learning, and the vast majority of the new building at the Guy's site will be used for the purpose for which it was intended.
There now need to be detailed consultations with the head of the medical school, the clinicians, the trust board and the special trustees about how to maximise the use of the building for the purposes of research and teaching, precisely the purposes for which it was established, in order to make it a great centre for the 21st century. I am confident that the trust's vision will deliver a first-rate university hospital, not only serving patients, but training future dentists, doctors, nurses and other health professionals.

Mr. James Couchman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. I always take points of order after statements.

Business of the House

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week, which will be as follows:
MONDAY 14 FEBRUARY—Until Seven o'clock, Motion on the Airports (Northern Ireland) Order.
Motion on the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order.
Motion on the Return of Cultural Objects Regulations.
Motion on the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order.
TUESDAY 15 FEBRUARY—Motion on the European Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order.
Motion on the European Parliamentary Constituencies (England) Order.
Motion on the European Parliamentary elections (Changes to the Franchise and Qualifications of Representatives) Regulations.
Motion on the Auditors (Financial Services Act 1986) Rules.
Motion on the Accountants (Banking Act 1987) Regulations.
Motion on the Building Societies (Auditors) Order.
Motion on the Auditors (Insurance Companies Act 1982) Regulations.
Motions on the Welsh Revenue Support Grant Reports. Details will be given in the Official Report.
WEDNESDAY 16 FEBRUARY—Motion on the Channel Tunnel (Security) Order.
Motion on the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order.
Motion on the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order.
Motion on the Statutory Sick Pay (Small Employers' Relief) Amendment Regulations.
Motion on the Social Security (Contributions) (Rerating and National Insurance Fund Payments) Order.
Motion on the Statutory Sick Pay (Rate of Payment) Order.
THURSDAY 17 FEBRUARY—There will be a debate on the Royal Navy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 18 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 21 FEBRUARY—Consideration in Committee of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I thank the Lord President for the comprehensive statement on next week's business.
Does the Lord President realise that the fact that there have been so many statements today before the Opposition debate on the Child Support Agency reinforces the impression already created by the Government that they are running away from a debate on that subject? I suspect that by the end of the business statement the time left for that debate will have been reduced from one day to half a day.
Before Christmas the Government wrongly and needlessly guillotined the Statutory Sick Pay Bill. As I recall, the right hon. Gentleman told the House that it need not be debated as it was so beneficial. Has the Leader of the House noted that that measure has been amended in another place? That should have been the business of this House, which highlights the need for reasonable scrutiny. It is as a result of the handling of that business that we are

now taking so many motions on the Floor of the House. Is not that another example of the Government shooting themselves in the foot?
We sought a debate last week, in Government time, on the report of the Public Accounts Committee on standards in public life, and the waste, incompetence and mismanagement that we are seeing under the Government. Has the right hon. Gentleman seen today's report of yet further losses of £48 million, which has been squandered on computer provision by the Department of Employment? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that is of significance, or does he agree with the Chief Secretary, who is reported as saying:
It happens in British business all the time"?

Mr. Newton: On the hon. Lady's last point, she will know that the Department of Employment will study the report of the Public Accounts Committee carefully. The Department has already issued a statement of initial comment making it clear that it does not accept all that Committee's criticisms, which appear to go beyond those made in the report of the National Audit Office.
The hon. Lady's earlier comments simply confirmed what I thought at the time—that she had not understood what was being said about the Statutory Sick Pay Bill. We did not say that it was not important enough to deserve debate. We said that, if the changes were to be brought into effect in an orderly way to allow industry proper time for implementation and for computer reprogramming, the Bill had to pass through the House before Christmas. Our view has been amply confirmed. One of the sets of regulations that I announced for next week follows on from the passage of that Bill. That will only just leave time for the proper implementation of the measure from the beginning of April. Those are the facts and I hope that the right hon. Lady will reflect on what she said.
I must tell the hon. Lady bluntly that her suggestion about today's statements was nonsense. Clearly, we had no reason for knowing that there would have to be a statement on Bosnia today. The House rightly expected a statement on Bosnia, but by the time we knew that there would be one, it would have been wrong to change the timing of the statement on the national health service. We had to have that statement to ensure that people outside the House were fully aware of the picture.

Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many politicians on the continent are puzzled at the lack of support—indeed, non-existent support—for European institutions that has come from this Parliament since the turn of the year? Those are important institutions, which cut across party boundaries and are germane to the interests of this country. Will my right hon. Friend do something about it? If he cannot, will he consider, in the longer term, providing time for a debate so that we can consider temporarily suspending our membership of those organisations?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend underlines a point which I have sought to make on several occasions and which was echoed in the debate on the motion to guillotine the Finance Bill by a number of right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House. I hope that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) will reflect on the fact that it is increasingly clear that the Opposition's action is not so much damaging the Government as damaging Parliament and the interests of this country.

Mr. James Wallace: The Leader of the House will be aware that today the Secretary of State for Scotland placed in the Library proposed amendments to the Standing Orders of the House. They involve the way in which Scottish business is handled. Will the Leader of the House state when the amendments will be tabled in the House and debated? Does he accept that people in Scotland will not believe it if the Government try to pretend that Labour party disruption is holding us back? They will not believe that as long as the Government are able to ram through measures such as the Sheriff Court Fees Amendment (No. 2) Order using their majority? Is there any hope that people can operate in a mature manner when introducing those modest improvements in the way in which Scottish business is handled?

Mr. Newton: I can confirm that my right hon. Friend has laid his proposals in the Library as the hon. Gentleman described. The proposals reflect the substantial discussions that were held before the usual channels were disrupted. We would obviously like to make progress as soon as possible, but I cannot give a date now.

Mr. Michael Bates: Will my right hon. Friend find an early opportunity next week to debate early-day motion 550?
[That this House notes that Labour-controlled Camden Council, which currently sets the highest council tax in Inner London, continues to waste vast sums of local taxpayers' money on inefficient services and ideologically-driven projects; is dismayed by the sense of priorities of a Council which spends nearly £150,000 per annum on six full-time trade union officials whilst, at the same time, closes down 16 play centres and junior clubs; is appalled to learn that the Council's HIV/AIDS housing project, involving the purchase and adoption of one property into five flats (four one-bedroomed and one two-bedroomed), cost a colossal £1·2 million and took two years to complete, and was then let to a Housing Association rent-free; points out that the £1·2 million could have helped far more HIV/AIDS sufferers if the money had been more thoughtfully spent; is not surprised that a report last year by the Local Government Ombudsman accused the Labour Camden Council of being guilty of "maladministration", a charge regularly levelled against Labour-run councils; and thinks it is about time the Labour Party censured Labour councils for spending taxpayers' money on politically-correct causes at the expense of vital local services, and encouraged them instead to follow the example of Conservative-run councils, which respond to the needs of the local community and provide them with an efficient and high quality service.]
That motion gives details of how the district auditors discovered that Labour-controlled Camden council had produced accounts showing a £20 million surplus, when there was, in fact, a £50 million deficit. Does my right hon. Friend know of any input that those Camden Labour councillors may have had into Labour's plan for business, as that would explain a lot to Conservative Members?

Mr. Newton: I doubt whether the people involved had any input into Labour's plan for business as the error was much too small for that.

Mr. Barry Jones: Will the Leader of the House find time next week for a debate on the steel industry? There is anger and apprehension at the

Government's unilateral decision to get rid of the European iron and steel employees readaptation benefits scheme, known as ISERBS. Does he realise that there is grave apprehension in the steel industry in Europe that there may be further cuts? Britain has made her contribution and we would like a debate so that we can tell the nation of our concern for the future of steel in Britain.

Mr. Newton: I think that the hon. Gentleman will know that that decision was taken after a careful evaluation of the scheme, which showed that it was not very effective in helping redundant steelworkers to re-enter the labour market. If the hon. Gentleman has not already done so, I hope that he will study a copy of the evaluation report which was placed in the Library of the House last October.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the Select Committee system is currently under pressure because of the number of pressure groups that are concentrating on individual Select Committees, making it difficult for them to carry out their work beyond small, identified investigations? In view of the fact that the Government introduced a deregulation Bill earlier this week, does my right hon. Friend agree that it might be appropriate to set up a new Select Committee on deregulation, encompassing all Government Departments and monitoring how deregulation is progressing?

Mr. Newton: I understand why my hon. Friend, with his interest in such matters, makes that suggestion, but he will know that since Select Committees were established the practice and feeling of the House has been that they should mirror the structure of Government Departments. What is most important to the deregulation initiative is that each Select Committee should be alert to the need and the possibilities in its own field.

Dr. Tony Wright: Is the Leader of the House becoming as weary of answering questions on the Jopling report and its fate as many hon. Members are of asking questions about it? Will he reflect on the fact that, in the past, substantial reform of this place, which is desperately needed now, has only ever come from energetic Leaders of the House, such as Richard Crossman and Lord St. John of Fawsley? Has he considered that the job of the Leader of the House is to lead the House, and when is he going to do it?

Mr. Newton: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is astonishing, in the circumstances precipitated by the Opposition Front Bench. The answer to it is a straightforward yes—but the second part of his question was addressed to the wrong person. It should have been addressed to his own Front-Bench spokesmen.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: May I ask for a debate on the structure of local government next week, so that hon. Members, especially Conservative Members, can emphasise how much importance we attach to the valuable work now being carried out by the Local Government Commission? It is important that, especially in my area, there is overwhelming support for a unitary authority. There has recently been all-party support for the devolution of powers within local government to town councils such as Kidderminster, which only the local government commission review could bring about.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will know that, as part of the basis of the commission's operations, it is expected to


take account of the views of people in an area. Of course I hope that it will take account of the views that he reports in his area.

Mr. Bob Cryer: As it is now nearly 12 months since the consultation document was issued and comments were received, will the Leader of the House give time next week for a debate on the curse of wheel clamping? The cowboy clampers are still hard at work extorting large sums, as much as £75 a time, from motorists who have left their cars not so much in awkward places as on what is obstensibly waste land. The clampers leap out, often in the dark, and hold people to ransom, keeping women away from their homes late at night. The practice is a real menace and should be brought to a halt. The Government should introduce legislation to bring England and Wales in to line with the Scottish courts, which have sensibly described clamping as theft and ransom.

Mr. Newton: I am of course aware of the concern felt on that subject by hon. Members on both sides of the House and I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's question to the attention of my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as the world's population is growing by about 10,000 every 55 minutes, many people believe that that is the root cause of most of the world's problems—health problems, famine, poverty, migration and shortages of fuel and water? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the United Nations conference on population development will take place in Cairo in September and that the recent G7 summit placed great emphasis on the importance of that conference? The Government will now be formulating their policy for the conference, so would not it be appropriate to have a debate on the subject sooner rather than later?

Mr. Newton: I certainly accept the importance of the subject. I cannot promise an early debate, but I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's question in mind.

Rev. Martin Smyth: As there are difficulties in getting the business of the House through, I ask the Lord President of the Council whether it would be possible to have an early debate on global security, bearing in mind the fact that today we have heard at least two references to NATO acting out of area. It seems to me that the House should be given an opportunity to say where we think we should go on the whole concept of global security.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has raised another important point, which I shall bear in mind, in the broad terms in which he expressed it. Subject to your judgment, Madam Speaker, I may suggest in return that some observations on that subject might conceivably be in order in the debate on the Navy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House next week.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The question asked by the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) clearly showed the frustration of Opposition Members at the fact that the Leader of the House has not provided time for a debate on the Jopling report. Over the past week I have asked Opposition Members at random their views on the subject. To a man, and to a woman, they said that they could not get through to their own Front-Bench spokesmen. Will my right hon. Friend hold discussions

with individual Opposition Members, decide what we should do, and bring the matter forward at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. Newton: There is much force in what my hon. Friend says. I, too, am in a sense grateful to the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood, because he has said publicly on the Floor of the House what many of his colleagues are saying in the Corridors.

Mr. David Tredinnick: Building on what the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood and my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) have said, may I remind my right hon. Friend that early-day motion 9, advocating the introduction of the Jopling report, has been signed by more than one third of the Members of the House of Commons? As there is no co-operation, between the Front Benches on the business of the House, and as we cannot scrutinise Bills properly, because we are having to stay up so late, does my right hon. Friend think that he, as the protector of Back-Bench interests, has a duty to bring the report before the House to be debated forthwith?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Newton: Again, the concern of hon. Members on both sides of the House has been made clear and I undertake to keep it very much in mind. However, I must tell my hon. Friend that he was in danger of confusing me, because according to my list, early day motion 9 is concerned with the Warwickshire police and has been signed by only seven people.

Mr. Harry Barnes:: Next Tuesday we shall deal with rather a lot of orders and some people may find that rather tedious. However, our business will have been enlivened earlier by a ten-minute Bill that I intend to introduce to improve electoral registration and access for disabled people to polling stations. That will be a rerun of a Bill that we dealt with last year, when the former Home Secretary said that although he was not against the principle, the Bill was premature. As a year has now passed, may we have a statement from the present Home Secretary on whether it is now time for the measure to be introduced?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman always enlivens our business, although not always in ways of which I approve. At this stage I cannot promise that my right hon. and learned Friend will join the enlivenment on Tuesday.

Mr. Gary Streeter: Will my right hon. Friend now yield to overwhelming public and parliamentary pressure, as reflected in early-day motions 459 and 559, and make room next week for a debate on the behaviour of the Liberal Democrat party in local government?

[That this House notes that the latest official Activists Handbook of the Liberal Democratic Party addresses the problems of delivering Liberal Democratic leaflets to "unintelligible inhabitants who appear to speak only in Punjabi, broad Cockney or Scouse or, worst of all, Glaswegian'; notes that this is only the latest example of the Liberal Democratic Party using racially offensive language or language that mocks regional accents; notes that it follows the publication by the Liberal Democratic Party of overtly racist literature in a local government election in Tower Hamlets, together with racist remarks by the Liberal


Democratic Councillor Tom Dommett in Somerset; and calls on the Right honourable Member for Yeovil yet again to expel Councillor Dommett from the Liberal Democratic Party and to withdraw the Activists Handbook forthwith.]

If we had a debate the scurrilous conduct now being swept under the carpet would be exposed to the full light of day.

Mr. Newton: That is another request that I shall bear in mind, because I believe that the whole House is becoming almost as frustrated with its failure to get action from the leader of the Liberal Democrats as some of the comments have revealed that it is over the Jopling report.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Why shall we not debate "taking stock" next week? Does the Leader of the House remember that a year ago the Government said that, just occasionally, some Scottish business might be decided by Scottish Members of Parliament? Since then Scottish local government has been gerrymandered by English Tory Members and last night the Government did not even allow a former Tory Solicitor-General for Scotland to speak on an issue of Scottish law, which was then decided by English Tories. Are the Government totally incapable of practising what they preach on any matter, and will "taking stock" descend into the same kind of farce as "back to basics"?

Mr. Newton: The very fact that the proposals following on from "taking stock" have now been brought further forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is a sign that we take such matters seriously. I wish that I could have a similar assurance from the hon. Gentleman that he acknowledges that this is the United Kingdom Parliament.

Sir Peter Emery: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will have words with those people who have been pressing him for debates during next week? If Standing Orders allowed the motions that have been laid before the House to be debated in Committee, we would have a three-day week next week in which many of the debates that have been requested could take place on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He adverts to the suggestion which was contained in the Jopling report and therefore embraces the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick).

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Given the ever-increasing importance of the regional dimension to our national life, and given the repeated statements of the Leader of the House that he will consider the matter, will the right hon. Gentleman now reconstitute under Standing Order No. 100 the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs?

Mr. Newton: I have no plans to do so at present. However, I always consider with care the suggestions which are made by the hon. Gentleman and others.

Mr. John Denham: Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate next week on personal pensions? It is many weeks since figures were released which showed that 2·5 million people who transferred from state earnings-related pension schemes

were putting too little into personal pensions to avoid being worse off in the future. The Select Committee on Social Security is looking into the matter, but the Government's silence is deafening. With every day that passes, those people are seeing a reduction in their future pensions. The House must have an opportunity to discuss their plight and what action should be taken to secure those pensions.

Mr. Newton: With his interest in such matters, the hon. gentleman will know of the current work of the Securities and Investments Board. He will also know that its new rules on disclosures of charges and commission on life insurance, including personal pensions, in response to directions from my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will be a further solid step towards improving the marketing of those products and to helping investors make well-informed decisions.

Mr. Derek Enright: Will the Leader of the House consider the questions that I have been asking the Treasury for the past three weeks, which concern the amount of public money that has been put into Unicorn plc? The only reply that I have received from the Treasury is that such information is confidential. Surely that cannot be correct. Will he persuade the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) to give a personal statement of how much taxpayers' money went into that failed company?

Mr. Newton: I have commented on that matter on earlier occasions, but I shall bring the matter to the attention of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Paul Flynn: When are we to debate the calamity engulfing the civil service, and especially the Accounts Services Agency? The press has been informed that, tomorrow, a written answer will be given by a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry on the possible management-employee buy-out of that agency. In a secret ballot among the staff, only one member voted in favour. How on earth can we debate that issue if information is given via a written answer on a Saturday? When will we have the chance to debate what is happening in the civil service? A fortnight ago, the Leader of the House told me that it was codswallop to think that the standards of the civil service were on the slide because of the base business ethics which have been introduced. Since then, three major scandals have emerged in Wales.

Mr. Newton: I am having some difficulty recognising the fact that a written answer is being given on a Saturday. Leaving that aside and the fact that I do not accept the comments of the hon. Gentleman, not by a mile, I shall bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend who is responsible for such matters.

Mr. Elliot Morley: Is the Leader of the House aware of the decision of Mr. Justice Laws, which, bizarrely, has stopped Somerset county council preventing the barbaric activity of stag hunting on its land? He said that it was a matter for Parliament, an excuse also used by the National Trust council, in defiance of its own members who also sought a ban on stag hunting. Given those circumstances, will the Leader of the House find some time for a free vote so that once and for all we may decide whether there is a future for such barbaric activity in a civilised society?

Mr. Newton: Certainly, I shall not comment on judgments in court. However, on the point which I can consider, the hon. Gentleman will know that for a long time such matters have been regarded as those for private Members' proposals and the practice has been to have a free vote.

Ms Tessa Jowell: Will the Leader of the House find time next week for the Secretary of State for Health to explain why she has still not answered a question which I tabled on 13 January? The question sought information about the number of press and public relations officers employed by the national health service. Perhaps there were too many to count.

Mr. Newton: I shall bring the request for an accelerated reply to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Points of Order

Mr. James Couchman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would you give urgent instructions to the authorities of the House to provide monitors in the Central Lobby and in the Lower Waiting Hall? I did not arrive in the Chamber for the beginning of the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health because I was snatching a few moments to collect some work from my secretary. I might as easily have been held up by a constituent. As a result of your decision not to call me, although I would not seek to question it and it seemed a shame that one person only was not called, my constituents were deprived of reassurance that they might have received from my right hon. Friend on the future of their health services.

Madam Speaker: If I may correct the hon. Member, there were two Members who did not hear the entire statement. Therefore, I could not call them. However. I know that the hon. Member is not challenging my decision on that point. The annunciator has clearly shown from about 1 o'clock onwards that the statements were to take place. The onus is on all Members to keep an eye on the annunciator and to be in their place if they are keen, as I know they are, to put questions.
I am sorry that in this case I could not call the hon. Member, but I shall certainly look his way on another occasion in the near future.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 98(5) (Matter relating exclusively to Wales).

EDUCATION STANDARDS

That the Matter of education standards in Wales, being a Matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Patnick]

Question agreed to.

ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Social Security (Contributions) 1994.
2. Statutory Sick Pay Act 1994.

Orders of the Day — OPPOSITION DAY

[3rd ALLOTTED DAY]

Child Support Agency

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister. As Members would expect, I have had to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches between the hours of 7 and 9. I seek co-operation outside those hours as there is a great deal of interest in the subject.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move,
That this House believes a parent has a duty to contribute to the maintenance of his or her child, and that duty must lie at the heart of any system of child support; recognises the widespread anger and dismay felt by thousands of families whose lives have been affected by the introduction of the Child Support Agency and calls for a further urgent review of its operation; welcomes the changes announced by the Government and now approved by the House; but believes these do not amount to the fundamental review that is required and fail to tackle key areas of concern such as the lack of an independent review procedure to deal with special circumstances to be defined in statute, which must be addressed if perceived injustice is to be eliminated and public confidence restored.
The House will be aware that about a week ago we discussed the Child Support Agency in the context of the new Government regulations. Some people may have been surprised that we have decided to return to it so quickly. By any standard, the decision is justified by the anger, dismay and sometimes the fear which have resulted from the change in the system of child support. People all over the country are worried about how they are to manage the unexpected consequences of the system. Arguably, they should have anticipated those consequences, but in many cases they did not and they have been left facing major problems.
Few hon. Members have not been startled by the strength of feeling which they have encountered in their constituencies and have not been left with the uncomfortable impression that the complaint which has been put to them so forcefully has some justification, yet redress is impossible.
It is important to stress that there are many more problems to come. It is difficult to get up-to-date figures in an organisation of such a size, but figures for 31 December 1993 show that 710,000 maintenance applications forms had been issued, of which only 210,000 cases had been cleared. In other words, there are at present about 500,000 cases in the pipeline on which final assessments are to be made. I fear that there is room for a great deal of heartbreak and anger in the figures.
Last week, we discussed the regulations—the Government's changes. It is not unfair to say that the view that was taken overwhelmingly on both sides was that the provisions did not go far enough and that more was required. I do not deride what was on offer. I made that clear on that occasion and I am pleased to say so again. I especially do not deride the increase in protected income. I recognise that the whole package, when fully

implemented in 1996–97, will mean that about £95 million less will be ingathered by the Child Support Agency than would otherwise have been the case.
I have learnt from a parliamentary answer that I received only a few minutes ago that, from the Government's point of view, about £50 million will be offset because of the reduction in the tax allowance to 15p on maintenance payments from 1995–96. However, all that will be little consolation for those who are paying maintenance because they will feel that they are in double jeopardy. They are paying their increased requisitions to the agency and they will get less tax relief to set against that. That will do nothing to improve the atmosphere.
Ministers must face the fact that, the other week, speaker after speaker rose to say that there was a need for further action. The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), apologetically defiant, but totally isolated—that is often his role these days—did his best, but he did not satisfy anyone. There is an urgent need to persuade Ministers to believe that they cannot close the file and tough it out.
I make it clear that I am certainly with the majority on this issue. Today, we should concentrate on positive proposals, some of which I listed last week when I did not have the time or the opportunity to argue in any detail. I make one general point which may command a good deal of agreement although it is, in a sense, a little academic now. Looking back—I accept that hindsight is a fine thing—it is unfortunate that we made the system retrospective.
I have talked to a number of people with experience of Australia. Australia will certainly crop up in my speech and I suspect that it will crop up in the deliberations of the House. In Australia, as many hon. Members will know, the Child Support Agency system applied to couples who separated on or after the introductory date of 1 October 1989 and to partnerships in which the youngest child was born on or after that date. It meant that there was a far longer transitional period as settlements made under court orders faded away. It also meant that there was not the pain and difficulty associated with our system in which long-standing arrangements and court settlements were torn up and in which settled arrangements were disrupted.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman is saying with the benefit of hindsight that the system should not be retrospective. Does that explain why his party is making a U-turn on the issue? Labour Members were in favour of the CSA in principle; when they found that there were difficulties, they wanted to run away. All they want to do is to throw the burden back on the taxpayer.

Mr. Dewar: I hope that I am not making a partisan speech. I am interested in the problem and I do not think that the intervention by the hon. Gentleman is helpful or typical of someone who takes these matters seriously. I make it clear that our support is for the general principle, which commands everyone's support, that a parent has a duty to contribute to the maintenance of his or her child. As the hon. Gentleman knows, if he was present at or has read the debates, there was a reasoned amendment dealing with the practicalities, on which we divided, which with remarkable perception identified and pointed to many of the difficulties that now haunt the system.
It is a little remiss of hon. Members—I am sure that the Minister will not do this—to say that because we approve of the principle that lies behind the Child Support Act 1991


and will have no compromise on it, we are therefore bound to everything that has happened and to every detail of the way in which the CSA operates. That is not the case. We should now concentrate on looking for solutions and at ways in which we can rebuild public confidence in the system, which has been greatly shaken.
There is nothing dishonourable in adjustment and change. The present system is not graven in tablets of stone. There were doubts in high places—I hope that this point is not thought to be partisan—from the very beginning. I draw the attention of the House to page 630 of "The Downing Stree Years" in which Lady Thatcher talks about her feelings. She writes:
I was also appalled by the way in which men fathered a child and then absconded, leaving the single mother—and the taxpayer—to foot the bill for their irresponsibility …So—against considerable opposition from Tony Newton, the Social Security Secretary, and from the Lord Chancellor's Department—I insisted that a new Child Support Agency be set up".
I do not say that to make a cheap point, but to illustrate the fact that there have been doubts on both sides of the House about what was happening and about how the new policy was implemented. Unusually, I advance Lady Thatcher as evidence of that—[Interruption.] It may not be the only time that the Leader of the House has been right and Lady Thatcher has been wrong. That is a more general political point.
I have been urging for some time the possibility of a review procedure. Hon. Members who attended our previous debate will remember that I briefly described it. An independent review officer would have the power to consider exceptional circumstances, to test the representations made to him against criteria defined in statute and, when the test was passed, to order a departure from the standard formula. I suggest that because of the fundamental concern, shared by both sides of the House, there is a great lack of flexibility in the system.

Mr. David Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dewar: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, which shows a certain charity.
The lack of flexibility has led to perceived injustice and on occasions, to real injustice, which has been embittering. The introduction of a review officer, a proposal that unashamedly leans heavily on the Australian experience, is well worth considering. I am convinced that there is a strong case to answer.

Mr. Shaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, thus allowing us to continue the debate we have had on previous occasions. If he feels that there should be an independent review procedure for child support cases, does he feel that the Inland Revenue tax system should have a similar independent review procedure in which independent officers could assess cases in which taxpayers felt that they were paying tax unfairly and wrongly? How would such a procedure be administered?

Mr. Dewar: I understand the point made by the hon. Gentleman; he is arguing by analogy. I have not considered that proposition. I have considered the difficulties that we face with the CSA and especially the breakdown of confidence in the system. I recognise that no one likes paying tax and that the Inland Revenue is unpopular when one gets a tax demand. Fortunately, I do

not detect as yet the growing crisis of confidence that exists in the CSA system. That is why I want to speak briefly about the system in Australia and its relevance to this country.
As hon. Members may know, the Child Support Agency system was introduced in Australia in October 1989. It progressed until 1 July 1992 without the review officer system. It was then decided that a review officer system was an advantage. The Australians made the change because they were running into problems not dissimilar to, although not on the same scale as, the problems that we face now. They built on their experience and they moved into the review officer system because they felt that it would defuse the situation and would help people who had a perception of injustice. The system changed successfully to accommodate those aims.
I have inquired into the Australian system and I have been told that the review officer system is seen as speedy and effective. There is no legal representation, although the parties can meet the review officer and make their representations. The system is used sensibly and has not led to some of the practical difficulties that we have been invited to contemplate when such a system is suggested. I am not saying that we should adopt the Australian system with every dot and comma; it is not a lift and take argument. We may want to alter and argue the grounds, for example, on which a referral may be made to the review officer, and the test that he applies. It is important that we take this seriously.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is making an important proposal, and we accept that he is making it in all sincerity. The crucial point about the Australian system is that the appeals have tended to raise the amount that is contributed by the absent parent, rather than reduce it. It is incumbent on the hon. Gentleman to explain to people outside the House exactly who and what proportion of absent parents will be entitled to appeal, and on what grounds. If we are talking about confidence in the system, it is the constant demands for review which will undermine that confidence more quickly than anything else.

Mr. Dewar: Certainly I am conscious, and cautious, of the points made by the hon. Gentleman. I tried to address them briefly in my previous speech on this subject, and I shall turn to them genuinely in a moment. I take what he says seriously.
All I shall say on the general point is that review within the present system is based largely on change of circumstance and error in calculation. There is no independent scrutiny; at the end of the day, people who are discontented find that they are imprisoned within the iron walls of the present system. That builds frustration, which is dangerous.
The Government have clearly and fairly stated their objections. The first is—the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Bury, North, has said this on many occasions—that the Australian system is different, and there is no parallel, it is a broad-brush approach and it is much cruder than the sophisticated and, by implication, comprehensive and effective assessment formula that we use. I do not accept that. The similarities are much more important than the differences.
The Australians were grappling—and I will not go into detail—with social problems, the growth in expenditure on


single parents, an increase in the number of single parents and the same sort of social phenomena with which we are familiar in this country. They have developed a somewhat different method of calculating the maintenance assessment. I take the point that there is no equivalent to the protected income. I agree that the formula of gross taxable income less exempt income to produce the adjusted amount is different. The Australians produced a system that relies on a set percentage of that sum as the final arbiter of the money to be paid. It is simpler but it seems to be similar.
I have been told by people who are wiser in the ways of the system than I am, and who have spent a good deal of time on this, that if we apply the Australian formula and the United Kingdom formula to families with exactly the same circumstances, we end up with comparable results. I do not accept, therefore, that we have no parallels and no common identity of interest or that the experience in Australia cannot at least be seen as relevant to our experience.
The second argument that was advanced can be put most crisply by quoting Viscount Astor speaking in another place yesterday:
The plain truth is that there are two options: discretion or a formula. These options are mutually exclusive; you may have one or you may have the other, but there is no middle road."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 February 1994, Vol. 551, c. 1682.]
I do not accept that. It seems that the noble Lord, or the person advising him, has an over-tidy mind. There is a touch of absolutism about tht view which is not justified.
I shall turn from the theoretical position to the practical. This is where we come to the point made by the Under-Secretary of State and to what happened in Australia. The practical results of what happened in Australia are the best advertisement for the case that I am advancing. There are many people in the world of law who certainly would not agree with Viscount Astor. Perhaps I shall quote only one of them. Recently, Mr. Michael Clancy, the deputy secretary in charge of law reform at the Law Society of Scotland, wrote to me in these terms. I quote:
I should mention that the Society considers that the Australian model of the Child Support Agency represents a more acceptable structure. It is unfortunate that the United Kingdom version did not adopt more of the flexible aspects of the Australian system.
I could quote that sort of opinion from sources who would be seen as having relevant expreience and expertise over a wide range.
I turn to the point made by the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin). I accept entirely that there is a danger that if we talk about a review procedure, people will see it as an open door—a court of second recourse rehearing the case from the beginning—and that that could lead to real problems. I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that I will not represent it in that way, certainly not in any sophisticated argument or serious debate about this matter.
It is right that we should have some form of independent review that can look at situations where there are genuine facts that are relevant to the care of the children and the situation of the absent parent, which cannot be taken into account at present. I have a notice of determination by the

review officer in Perth, Western Australia. He has before him all the grounds of application which are defined in statute. I quote:
I have a duty to maintain another child or person has special needs.
I have necessary commitments in supporting myself…High costs of access to the child.
Special needs of the child",
and so on. How they are interpreted is a matter of argument.
One issue which has worried Tory Members from the south-east is commuting costs. Previously, the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) talked about being devastated by the impact of the Child Support Agency on his constituency, although he was a strong supporter of the system when the legislation reached the statute book. I will not say hard and fast—it will be a matter for further discussion—that commuting costs can be covered by those grounds.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): For the purposes of clarification, the Australian system does not take into account travel costs. We have confirmed that with the Australians.

Mr. Dewar: That is fair enough. Undoubtedly, it will be a matter for argument. Some people may think that it will have to be argued under the heading:
I have necessary commitments in supporting myself.
The point is that there could be discussion about exactly how the grounds are interpreted. I am arguing the structural case—the need effectively to tackle the justice deficit that is perceived in the system.

Mr. Oliver Heald: rose—

Mr. Dewar: I want to finish this passage.
I have tried to make inquiries into the use of this system in Australia. I am grateful to Nicholas Mostyn—he is well known for his work in this field—for the facts and figures that I shall give the House. In steady state terms, there are about 120,000 assessments annually in Australia; 12,900—about 11 per cent.—of them have got into the review system. Of that, 6 per cent. have been successful. It may be of interest to the hon. Member for Colchester, North that in 4 per cent. of the cases, the absent parent—normally the father-got a reduction in assessment. In 2 per cent. of the cases—this is significant—mothers managed to get increased assessments. Therefore, the system has not been overused, and it has not been abused since it settled down. It has been used by both parties—both sides of the equation.
Having talked to people who are familiar with the system, I have to say that it is seen as effective, speedy, sensible and a necessary safety valve. I have talked not just to academics and lawyers here; I have had the advantage of discussing the issue with one or two Australian lawyers who specialise in family law, who are in the United Kingdom for a number of reasons and have the practical experience that I value. All of them have repeated that message and underlined it. I hope that the House will not slough off the arguments in this area. If we do so, we will do a great disservice to the agency and what it is supposed to stand for—and, indeed, what it potentially still stands for.
The final argument—I shall deal with it quickly—used by the Under-Secretary is a reprise of what I mentioned before: the system is unfair because it raises false hope.


That cannot be right. Even if only a few people are suffering real injustice—I suspect that there will be a significant minority—we cannot erect a system that defies them and stops them from getting justice because it may lead to disappointment for others who do not have a good case. That is a dangerous—one might say pragmatic—argument and one that I hope will not find favour with the House.

Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what he is describing—the right of appeal in only exceptional cases—will not do anything for the people who are complaining? Those include people who would like existing debts and the fact that the divorce happened many years ago taken into account. The hon. Gentleman is offering a narrow right to a small number of people. Is not that a bit of a con on the public, who may think that the Labour party is battling today for most of the fathers, when he is just talking about a handful?

Mr. Dewar: I think that the hon. Gentleman is a lawyer.

Mr. Heald: A what?

Mr. Dewar: A lawyer. [Interruption.] I did not catch what the hon. Gentleman thought I said, if I may put it in that rather Irish way. I tremble to think what was in his mind, and I hope that it was not the result of a guilty conscience.
In any event, I understand that the hon. Gentleman is a lawyer. I quoted the figures from the rather controlled Australian situation, where 11 per cent. of cases went to a review officer and 6 per cent. succeeded. If one makes that 6 per cent. of the much larger figures in Britain, there is a significant constituency for the appeal procedure. Many of those involved would be the worst cases.
The hon. Gentleman may want to argue the opposite of what I suspect Ministers will argue, and say that the scheme ought to have wider scope. I am grateful for his intervention, because it shows that there is an area of debate as to how narrow the gate should be. The Minister and the hon. Gentleman may disagree about that if we get to that stage. The important thing, however, is to accept that there is a need for that safety valve. That is what I want to argue tonight.

Dr. Robert Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dewar: I must move on. It would not be fair to the many people who wish to speak.

Mr. Lilley: rose—

Mr. Dewar: There are two other points on which I want to speak, but I will of course give way to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman must not leave the House in confusion. Is he proposing a narrowly prescribed system which would help few people? Does he want to open the system up for wider use by discretion, which would inevitably take us back to the system which failed before and transferred all of the burden on to the taxpayer?

Mr. Dewar: I do not want to leave the Secretary of State in confusion, and I am sorry if I have. The balance reached in Australia looks not unreasonable to me. I have made it clear that I would be open to argument from other hon. Members if we get to that stage of discussion.
The Under-Secretary said in a broadcast this morning that my motion was defective because it did not specify exactly what the grounds of appeal for the review procedure would be. I am not trying to argue that case arrogantly at the moment. As I have explained, I am trying to put a point of principle to the House, and I hope it is one to which people will respond.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Will my hon. Friend put this point to the Minister? A constituent of mine who has never been in debt in his life and has always paid what the court told him to pay is now lumbered with more than £700 in debt. The agency has doubled the amount to £38 a week. The young man asked me how he was to get the money—should he rob a bank or disappear off the face of the earth? Is not that the situation into which the Government are putting people?

Mr. Dewar: Many people feel that they are in a cul de sac. I hope that my hon. Friend advised his constituent against both courses of action. I sympathise with the serious point that my hon. Friend makes.
I now turn to clean break settlements and to the situation in which a property or financial settlement has been made but cannot be taken into account. There is a great deal of anger over that, and a feeling of betrayal. The feeling very often is that good intentions are being ill-rewarded now that the system has been introduced. People have acted for the best, and have sometimes acted generously in difficult circumstances, and they are now being hit hard as a result.
There has been recent litigation with the Crozier case. I understand from those with whom I have talked that that was perhaps not the strongest case to take as a test to court. Be that as it may, I suspect that there may be more litigation before too long, with people suggesting that a reference to the CSA is a unilateral abrogation by one party of a contract between two parties. In any event, the Crozier case has decided the issue for now.
I again look to the Australian experience. There can be an agreement between the parties, and if there is a financial or property settlement which both parties agree will affect the maintenance award, they can specify how it is expected to affect that award. If it is lodged with the CSA for collection, that will be honoured. More important, if the parent with care ends up on benefit in the future and the CSA is making an assessment, it is possible to vary the assessment according to the recognition of the property transfer up to a maximum of 25 per cent.
There is always room for argument, but there is virtue in that and it is at least something which we ought to consider. I was interested—I know that the Secretary of State will remember this—to re-read the White Paper "Children Come First" which was published on 29 October 1990. Paragraph 4.12 states:
There remains the issue of whether there should be some reduction in the formula award of child maintenance to reflect the fact that the absent parent has foregone permanently some or all of his share in the family home. If such reduction in the formula amount were to be permitted, the value of the reduction would he calculated by using standard accounting techniques for converting a lump sum into an equivalent weekly amount over a number of years.
I draw attention to the fact that there is no suggestion in the White Paper that that was impractical or that there was some barrier which made it impossible. Clearly, it was an option in contemplation and the machinery, if it was to be implemented, was being outlined and defined.
The then Secretary of State for Social Security and the Lord Chancellor jointly produced that White Paper. Two months later, for reasons to which I am not party, that was not incorporated when the Bill was published. I believe now that it would have been sensible so to do. I have been told that it is not necessary to do that. I find those arguments perhaps the most implausible in this whole range of exchanges.
The Minister says that if a parent has transferred a house or has settled a large financial sum on the parent with care, he is probably creating a situation in which he must buy another house. That is reflected in his housing costs, and therefore everything is all right and he has come out at least with justice and honour satisfied. I do not believe that is true in a financial or a property settlement. I need hardly say that an awful lot of people agree with that point of view.
I do not often get annoyed with the Government's documents, or at least not in the way in which I did on this occasion. [Interruption.] There are exceptions when the personal authorship of a document sometimes riles me. On this occasion, I was rather miffed by paragraph 7.31 of the discussion paper on divorce law reform which we have before us. The document says that the CSA formula
takes account of each parent's income and essential outgoings at the time of assessment and, because it deals with the financial consequences of any property transfer, takes account of the practical outcome of 'clean break' settlements.
I do not think that that can be justified or held to be true when we look at the practical reality.
I cannot resist saying that I recommend that any hon. Member with an interest in the curious should read the Lord Chancellor's introduction. It must be the first time a Lord Chancellor has justified law reform by referring to what Jesus said to the Pharisees about Moses, as recorded by St. Mark. I cannot help thinking that the good Lord Mackay of Clashfern is remembering his roots.
Be that as it may, the quotation which I have given does not stand analysis. Therefore, it is wrong to say that it is not necessary to consider clean break settlements. There are thousands of cases which testify to that up and down the country.
My other argument—I will try to hurry this—is that the Minister commented on the Select Committee, and what it says in paragraph 74 of its report. The Committee has become the buckler and shield for the Minister in all the arguments and debates, and it is summoned twice to the aid of the party in the amendment to the motion. That is unfair, because it has been made clear that the Committee was making an interim report about the financial workings of the formula, and that it would return later to the matter in more depth. If we are praying in aid Select Committees, the Minister will certainly remember that, when the Bill was first published, the Select Committee on Social Security published two reports. Both argued that there must be a mechanism properly to reflect clean break settlements.
The Minister spouted paragraph 74 of the current report. Even it says:
We can see no sensible way of attempting to place a current value on settlements made in the past in order to give some notional figure for current income which could be taken into account in the formula.
That may be so, but it does not rule out some formula or arrangement of the type that I have mentioned, even at its most modest, to deal with settlements in the future.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): The hon. Gentleman missed the little bit before, which states:
Having examined the issue, we have to agree with the Minister.

Mr. Dewar: No. I am sorry. I did not mean to be unfair. In his eagerness to find a lone supporter somewhere—a prop on which to lean—the Minister is building too much on the words that I am quoting. The report said:
Having examined the issue, we have to agree with the Minister.
The issue in question is the paragraph that I quoted beginning, "We can see no sensible way". The Select Committee was referring to the difficulty of dealing with the past. On any reasonable interpretation of the text, it did not necessarily rule out the future.
I leave the matter to the Minister. It is of great concern and one to which we should turn our minds, as I am sure the Select Committee will—collectively, I hope, not individually—at some future date.

Mr. Thurnham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I point out that the report from the Committee is not an interim report? It is a first report and the duty of the Committee is to report "from time to time".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is a matter for argument, not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Dewar: I do not want to get into a barrack-room lawyers' argument with the hon. Gentleman. I fear that he would win that. If he wants some guidance on the matter, he should perhaps read the interesting speech made by the Chairman of the Committee in the Chamber last week. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would not obstruct a wish to have another look at the matter.
I recognise the difficulties with a disregard. However, I believe that a disregard of some benefit for the purposes of maintenance should be considered and should be on the agenda. I said it last week and I shall repeat it. There is one overwhelming reason for it. Ministers proudly introduced the system as being about getting more money from more parents for more children. In fact and in practice, it is not. One of the difficulties is the notorious estimate that, of the first £530 million that was expected to be gathered—we understand that the expected figure is lower now, because of the changes that are being introduced, if nothing else -£480 million would go to the Treasury and only £50 million would go to families and children.

Dr. Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dewar: As the hon. Gentleman gave a speech that was so much on my side during last week's debate, I will give way.

Dr. Spink: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the cost of a £10 a week disregard would be £340 million? The hon. Gentleman is a genuine man. Will he tell us two things? First, which taxes would he raise to meet that £340 million? Secondly, is he happy with the impact that the disregard would have in breaking up families?

Mr. Dewar: I shall come to that in a moment. I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would repeat his points about the difficulties in his constituency and the unfairness of the system, but I suppose we have to live with these disappointments.
The children who are most economically deprived—those in families living on benefit—are the least likely to gain any advantage from the operation of the Child Support Agency. I do not believe that that was the intention of the system. I recognise that it is a matter of balance and that the Government and the taxpayers have a legitimate interest in reducing bills. However, the balance is wrong and many people will see it as wrong.
The arguments are simple. One is that a disregard is unfair because it is something of a lottery whether the absent partner of Mrs. A is traced and pays. Mrs. B's partner may not be traced or, if traced, may not pay. So it is argued that it is unfair that one should be advantaged over the other. It seems an odd caricature of the position to argue for misery all round in order to preserve equality. If money is being paid, there is a strong moral case for saying that at least some advantage—however much goes to the Treasury and the taxpayer—should go to the children who are most economically at risk.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dewar: I am sorry. I have given way to the hon. Lady on many occasions. I want to be fair and hurry on.
I do not accept the disincentive for work argument. I recognise that it is a factor, but although a small disregard might be important cumulatively over a year, it would be a poor job if people were stopped from taking up work by a £5 or £10 disregard.
The real argument is about cost. I do not believe that anyone has any doubt about the morality of helping the poorest families and children. I do not see the issue as a matter of tax, and the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) did. The Government make a decision about how the money gathered is split. They do not increase the total amount of money by refusing to allow a disregard. It is a matter of to what extent the Treasury is prepared to forgo some of the revenue collected to help children.
Surely no one in the House will say that, in a system that is about the care of children and is supposed to be child centred and child based, there is not a case for considering a disregard and putting it on the agenda, especially in view of the figures that are emerging. The figure to which the hon. Member for Castle Point referred came from a parliamentary answer to a question that I tabled. I do not believe in dealing in generalities if I can get the information.
The decision about a disregard depends on some difficult calculations and on the size of the disregard. The cost of a £5 disregard, which might still be of some importance, is £160 million or £170 million, according to the latest estimate. There are many variables. I am simply putting the issue on the table. The argument about a disregard is important and we should not sweep it aside in the way that Ministers could be tempted to do.
In its recently published ninth report, the Social Security Advisory Committee said that it had examined the possibility of a disregard several times and believed that there was a case for a disregard. I have received representations from a range of opinion in favour of a disregard. At the end of the day, it boils down to bow we see the system, where the priorities lie and how we want to arrange these affairs. There is a strong case for putting children rather higher up the list of priorities than has been possible until now.
I regret what happened to the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Bury, North when he was closing the previous debate. Hon. Members who were present will remember that he was cut short dramatically. He had just come to the pregnant phrase, "And now for the future", when the lights went out—metaphorically, you understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not literally. We did not learn about the future on that occasion and we were left to wait and wonder. We cannot afford to wait and wonder much longer. The issue will not go away. There is a justice deficit, and it has to be tackled.
I have listened to what the Government have been saying. I have heard a selection of reassuring utterances, some of which offered a prospect of change. I draw one to the attention of the House because it is the most optimistic that I have heard, although it has not held the line. The Yorkshire Post of 27 January 1994 had a front-page story containing an interview with the Prime Minister, in which he said:
Where the operation of it"—
the Child Support Agency—
was inadequate—as people believed it to be—we have sought to make changes. I hope we have got it right now. I can only repeat that we can't be certain. If it turns out not, we will have to look at it.
That certainly suggested something of an opening and a softening of attitudes. I was particularly interested in the phrase
Where the operation of it was inadequate—as people believed it to be".
It was as if there was now evidence that people no longer had that belief.
I fear that if that is the Prime Minister's position, he is being over-optimistic. Since then, I am afraid that the evidence has turned against us. At Prime Minister's Quesion Time last week he said:
we stated that it would be kept under review. We are still true to that pledge—it still applies."—[Official Report, 3 February 1994; Vol. 236, c. 1019.]
That is a ministerial form of words. I make no complaint about that, as every ministerial team uses it; it is a sort of placebo for worried Back Benchers. We are told that everything is under review—a good Government always keep their eye on developments. That is a way of putting off action, rather than promising early action or taking action that little bit earlier.
The debates in the Lords yesterday, the interviews given today by the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security and others and the amendment on the Order Paper hold out little hope for movement in the short term, but we need movement. We cannot wait and see. We do not have the time, nor has the system. If we do not act, consent—which is the foundation of the law—may be eroded. Without consent, the law becomes unenforceable. The problem is serious and Ministers have to recognise it as such.
One day, a Tory who was sitting below the Gangway said, with great simplicity:
It has gone horribly wrong. We have got to put it right.
I do not dissent from that view, and if it takes primary legislation and there is broad agreement on the principle behind such legislation, we will do everything to expedite it in the minimum time.

Mr. Lilley: Is that a promise?

Mr. Dewar: I can give the Secretary of State that promise. If he introduces legislation that commands general support, I am happy to say that we will be helpful; I hope that he will take that offer seriously.
The motion is unashamedly narrow in focus; it does not have any general attack; and it is not decorated with political accusations of one sort or another. It states an important principle and restates what all hon. Members believe—that parents have a duty to maintain their children. The motion also welcomes the announced changes. I have repeatedly made it clear that I welcome them, despite my reservations about their scale. However, the motion also recognises that there is a problem, urges further reform and instances the need for an independent review procedure, which would go to the heart of the discontent—it is not the end of the list or the end of change, but it is a proper symbol of what we ought to be trying to do in the House and that is why it was included.
It is never easy for Conservative Members to vote for a Labour motion on a Supply day, but if the motion is approved it will be a strong sign—perhaps even a direction to Ministers—that the mood of the House is for further reform and change. It would not be dishonourable for Conservative Members to approve the motion because they would be reflecting the mood of the country and the troubles and anxieties in every Member's constituency.
The motion is fully justified and worthy of support. Many people will watch anxiously for a sign tonight that the House will not merely worry, agonise and do nothing. I hope that both sides of the House will support the motion, as it will have the support of people in every part of the country.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'welcomes the support of the all-party Select Committee on Social Security for the principles of the Child Support Act; reaffirms its own support for those principles, in particular that every parent has a duty to contribute to the maintenance of his or her child, that the amount of maintenance paid for children should be increased, and that the cost of bringing up children should fall on other taxpayers only if parents are unable to maintain their children themselves; recognises the inconsistency and arbitrariness of the previous court-based system, which gave insufficient priority to parental support of children and left many children on benefit; welcomes the important changes recently introduced by the Government in response to early experience of the new scheme and the Select Committee's report on its practical working; and approves the Government's intention to keep the arrangements under continuing close review as further experience is gained.'.
I apologise for the slightly groggy tone of my voice. I applied to the BBC for an actor's voice-over, but was told that I would have to join Sinn Fein.
I commend the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) for resisting the temptation to abandon his support for the Child Support Agency, which I know that some hon. Members will have tried to persuade him to do, and for the essentially non-partisan tone of his remarks today and when he has handled the issue previously. Although I must take issue with some of his points, despite the fact that this is an Opposition Supply day I shall respond in an equally non-partisan vein.
This is too sensitive a matter for any of us to want to play politics. In any case, there is a wide measure of all-party agreement on the issue. The Act was passed with

all-party support and all parties agree on three key points. The first is the basic principle that parents are responsible for their children, that that responsibility continues even if, sadly, they should split up, and that the taxpayer should be involved only if the parents lack means to support them themselves.
Secondly, none of us really wants to return to a system which failed—failed our children, failed the taxpayer and failed to uphold the principle of parental responsibility. There are about 1·3 million lone parents and 1 million of them depend on income support. Three in four receive not one penny of regular maintenance, many of the one in four with such an agreement are often paid late, irregularly, or not at all and the amounts are often inadequate and inconsistent.
Sue Slipman, of the National Council for One Parent Families, put it very well recently when she said:
Before April last year, only 30 per cent. of lone parents got any maintenance for their children whatsoever in this country. Most of it was at derisory levels. And I will tell you what happened when you went to court to get someone to pay maintenance. Maybe he would turn up to the hearing. But maybe he wouldn't. And if he didn't it would be postponed for 6 months. You would then get a whole range of debts that would be presented and a whole range of other excuses for why maintenance could not be paid. You might then at the end of that get an order, and it might be paid for two to three weeks. No-one even enforced it, and no-one was ever interested. And as a result of that the experience of over 1.7 million children in this country was abandonment by one parent and a life in poverty with the other.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The people who are contacting their Members of Parliament with detailed complaints are not the people whom the Minister is describing. They are respectable, responsible people who have always paid their maintenance, but who now find themselves in devastating circumstances because of the operation of the provision. What is to be done for them?

Mr. Lilley: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We must distinguish between people who were not doing anything to meet their responsibilities and those who have been honourable throughout. We have tried to reflect that in our changes.

Mr. Graham: rose—

Mr. Lilley: May I be allowed to make a little progress before I give way?
Thirdly, we are all agreed that we want to make the Child Support Act 1991 work as Parliament intended when it was passed unopposed. We want to make it work fairly. We want to be fair to parents who care and to absent parents, to first and to second families, and to parents and taxpayers. Surely that is a common objective on both sides of the House.

Mr. Graham: I have here all the letters that I have received from people who feel that they have been unfairly treated. They want an appeals procedure. Why does the Secretary of State not listen? He does not seem to understand that Opposition Members desperately want the right of appeal and review. We might then get some common sense.

Mr. Lilley: I shall come to that matter in due course. We have tried to respond to the obvious concerns that all hon. Members have experienced in their surgeries. Obviously, one of the healthy aspects of our political


system is that we all have contact with our constituencies. Ministers also have direct experience of what their constituents are saying.
We have said all along that we would keep the matter under review. We responded rapidly to the concerns voiced by Members of Parliament, which were considered by the Select Committee on Social Security and reflected in its well-thought-out recommendations. We rapidly introduced some important changes, which I shall come to shortly.
I assure the House and my hon. Friends that we will keep the system under review. We will monitor it closely, will study how our reforms work and will respond to any new problems which emerge as a result of those changes.

Mr. David Tredinnick: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the overriding problem is the scale of the change that parents have suddenly found themselves facing, for a range of reasons? The solution must be some easing of those circumstances. We have already had some helpful changes, but surely the mood of the House is that the process should be taken a stage further so that the system is perceived to be fair. Action of that kind would, I think, carry the House.

Mr. Lilley: My analysis overlaps with that of my hon. Friend. We felt that we had to make some changes that would be reflected in the scale and speed of the impact. I shall be considering the changes—from which, of course, no one has yet benefited. Surely it is worth waiting to see how they work out and affect our constituents. That is what I shall spell out in a moment.

Mr. Robert Jackson: My right hon. Friend has moved quickly to make some changes, and I accept that they ought to be given some time so that we may see how they work in practice. I hope that when my right hon. Friend discusses the further review that is mentioned in the Government amendment he will give some indication of the time scale involved. Indeed, he might even set a date. I hope that he will address also the question of the efficiency and responsiveness of the Child Support Agency bureaucracy, which is very unsatisfactory from the point of view of Members of Parliament and, a fortiori, much more unsatisfactory from the point of view of the clients.

Mr. Lilley: We have demonstrated willingness to respond in a timely fashion to the need for change. That must be the best assurance that I can give hon. Members. It is better than setting out a specific time scale.
With regard to the second point in my hon. Friend's intervention, I should say that it is clearly important that the agency be made to work effectively, efficiently and responsibly and that it be sensitive to the needs of those affected by it and take account of the concerns expressed, either directly or through Members of Parliament, by them. We have drafted in extra resources for the purpose of dealing with queries and complaints.
However, it will be helpful if we can get the changes bedded down and under way. Continual change and turmoil will not help. The changes that are currently being introduced involve a major effort. If the agency were to suspend its normal operations every few months. for this purpose, that would not help in the provision of the sort of service that we all want.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Lilley: I should like to make a little more progress. I have no doubt that I shall be dealing with some of the points that hon. Members have in mind. In any case, I shall give way in a little while.
I shall elaborate later on the changes that I have made. But it should be no surprise to anyone that the implementation of this legislation aroused opposition. Every similar agency in every other country—Australia, New Zealand, various states in the United States and Scandinavia—has met strong initial opposition from absent parents who have been asked to bear an increased share of the cost of supporting their children. But the fact that opposition is inevitable does not mean that it should be ignored—and we have not ignored it.
Our task is to distinguish the genuine grievances and unintended consequences of the Act from an understandable reluctance to pay or to pay more. That is what I have tried to do, and I think that it is what the Select Committee tried to do. To be fair to the hon. Member for Garscadden, I have to say that he too has distinguished between, on the one hand, genuine and remedial concerns and, on the other hand, what he described last week as the inevitable problems and difficulties from which there is no escape.

Mr. Roy Hughes: The Secretary of State will realise that my experience in this field is different from that of many other hon. Members. Half the cases with which I dealt at the last interview session in my constituency related to problems arising from the Child Support Agency. Some of the men I interviewed were in a quite distressed state. I am approached also by young, unmarried women with one or two children. I ask, "Who is the father? Who should be financially responsible?", and I am told, "I don't know where he is." Surely the Child Support Agency should be paying more attention to irresponsible young people rather than concentrating on people who are trying to meet their responsibilities.

Mr. Lilley: That is a very good point. There is no doubt that the hostility towards the agency has been heightened by a number of misconceptions, concerning which I want to set the record right. There is a misconception about whether the agency is pursuing people who are not paying maintenance. We are certainly not pursuing only those who are already paying some. In a clear majority of all the cases that have been taken on so far, the absent parent is not paying a penny of regular maintenance and has not even agreed in principle to do so. In 96 per cent. of all cases so far, the child and the mother are living on benefit, yet the vast majority of absent fathers and any new family they may have are living significantly above that level, even after making any maintenance payment.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Secretary of Stae accept that if young unmarried mothers apply for a paternity suit in court the Child Support Agency holds up the process?

Mr. Lilley: I should like to receive evidence of particular cases. That is certainly not necessarily the case.
There is a third misconception. We are enjoying more success in tracking down absent fathers—men who have disappeared, leaving no address and making no contact. Indeed, the agency has been more successful than most people expected in tracing such people through national insurance numbers and information from Inland Revenue records. Indeed, in 90 per cent. of cases that we have



pursued so far—15,000 cases, in which there was absolutely no indication of where the fathers had gone—we have managed to track down the individuals.

Hugh Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend have discussions with the Treasury about the ex-husband who creates a one-man company or a sole-trader organisation, thereby pushing the weekly expenses of his household above the line for accounting purposes, reducing the assessable income and depriving the former wife of support for her children?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend raised that matter in an Adjournment debate, and it is still being considered by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. It is always difficult to ensure that one has a proper income assessment in the case of a sole trader, but we have to do our best in the interests of fairness.
There is a final misconception. It is that child support officers are paid a bonus related to the amount of money they secure from absent parents. Let me put the myth to rest. That is not true. Agency staff receive an element of performance-related pay in exactly the same way as do all other civil servants. That means that they are assessed by their line manager every year as to accuracy, adjudication, clearance times and service to customers. They are not assessed on the basis of how much money they have collected. There is no element of bounty-hunting. I hope that I have put the myth to rest.
But even without those misapprehensions, there have been genuine concerns about the impact of the system. I decided that the best way to address the concerns and ease the position was not to elaborate the formula to accommodate specific concerns but to try to leave parents with more of their own money with which to cope with specific needs. The Select Committee reached the same conclusion.
I have sought to tailor the easements that we are able to make to remove some of the roughest edges of the formula and to respond to some of the main areas in which there is a feeling of injustice with which one could sympathise. But it seemed that demands often fell too abruptly—particularly where people had second families and an existing maintenance agreement, which they expected, rightly or wrongly, to continue for the foreseeable future.
So we have extended to all such families a phase-in period of up to 18 months. On a preliminary estimate, that should help a many as 100,000 absent parents over the next three years. Letters will go out this week and next to all those who have already received assessments and may benefit from that phase-in, telling them how they should apply for it.
We have made three other permanent changes to the formula. They should help to reduce maintenance costs for 40 per cent. of absent parents who have so far received a maintenance assessment.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one problem of perception is that, so far, we are seeing only cases where the women concerned are still on benefit and therefore see no direct result of the fact that the fathers of their children are paying an enhanced contribution for their responsibilities? We may come to a time when women who are not on benefit but on the borderline find that their maintenance is increased. If

we are not careful, we may then find that many people come to our surgeries asking why we are campaigning to reduce a formula that could have made all the difference to them and their children. If the change had been made in tandem with the benefit of hindsight, it might have been a different story.

Mr. Lilley: Already, many women on benefit value and look forward to receiving their maintenance. It may lift them off dependency directly; if not, it provides them with stilts with which to walk away from benefit, because it is a portable benefit which they carry with them into work. That is extremely important.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Lilley: I shall come to that issue later, so hon. Members who wish to make points on it can do so then.

Mr. Frank Field: Although it is important to think about how the reform will help hundreds of thousands of mothers in the long term, when their children are older and they can get work, the House and particularly the Secretary of State must deal with the short term. What the reform lacks is supporters.
When we discussed in the House the specific proposal which the Secretary of State has mentioned, I argued against mothers on benefit being able to keep any of the money. I said that it would lessen the incentive to return to work, it was unfair on those whose children's fathers could not be traced, and so on. My hon. Friends the Members for Eccles (Miss Lestor) and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) argued against me.
The Government must accept the fact that most of the assessment forms to the millions of people affected have yet to be sent out. In the meantime, we must build up support for this reform in the country. The best way to do that would be to see whether mothers on benefit should keep a small part of the money paid. We must accept the fact that taxpayers have, primarily, been footing the bill, sometimes when they should not have been. We must be pragmatic about the matter. We shall be overwhelmed by fathers coming in to our surgeries. It will not be those who have never paid, because they will be too ashamed to turn up. It will be those who are paying and feel that they are getting a rough deal.
Against that, we must build up a band of people who can see the value of this Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles was right from the word go and I was wrong. We should now seriously consider making that change.

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman has admitted to changing his mind. I am afraid that he has not convinced me that I should do so, and I shall explain why. Many people already know that they are benefiting from this system. Although they have not been vocal, my fear is that, once they realise that the changes that we are making will reduce correspondingly their entitlement to maintenance just as it reduces the maintenance obligation of the absent father, they will become more vocal. There will then be a redressment in the public's perception of the matter.
That is already beginning to show in newspaper correspondence columns. A letter in the Today newspaper said:
I have even experienced my ex-husband saying on TV how unfair the system is to him and his new wife. The maintenance he pays for this two teenage sons is only fractionally more than the hire purchase repayments on his new hi-fi equipment.


The woman values that maintenance because she is on income support.

Mr. Dewar: This is an important aspect. Will the Secretary of State consider the statistic that he gave? Although it will change to an extent, he said that 96 per cent. of parents with care are currently on income support. That will not change dramatically because we know that 70 per cent. of lone parents are on income support. There is a strong case for saying that we do not want to unbalance the argument by listening only to the absent parent lobby, but it would help the majority of people in the system—parents with care—if we included a modest disregard. For many absent parents, it would also give more point to the process of paying if they knew that some benefit would go to the families in whose name the system was introduced.

Mr. Lilley: The 96 per cent. includes some mothers and parents with care who are on family credit rather than income support. There, a disregard exists because it acts as an incentive to work. It has the perverse effect of a disregard given to those on income support, as well as substantially reducing the benefits to the other beneficiaries from the system, whose interests should not be ignored—the taxpayers. They may be bringing up their families on incomes far less than those whose second families they are contributing to through the tax system.
After phasing in, my next priority was to ensure that people on modest income should not feel that it was barely worth their while working once they had paid maintenance. That is why I have sharply increased the level of protected income. We have quadrupled the margin above income support level at which the floor is set. That means an extra £22 a week for many absent parents. We are allowing them to keep 15 per cent. of income above that level before paying maintenance. That goes beyond anything requested in the Select Committee's report.
At the other end of the spectrum, I was concerned about some of the large maintenance payments sometimes demanded. Those can come about only as a result of the additional payment element. That is the share of assessable income over and above what is necessary and sufficient to pay enough maintenance to lift the child off income support. I am reducing that from a flat rate of 25p in the pound to just 15p in the pound for people with only one previous child; 20p if they have two; and 25p for those with three or more.
The other major change is the reduction in the carer's cost once the youngest child reaches secondary school age. It will be reduced by a quarter at the age of 11; by half at the age of 14; and it disappears entirely at the age of 16. That could help 130,000 absent parents a year, and every absent parent will benefit in due course as his or her children get older.
Some people have said that the basic £44 a week carer element is too high when the children are very young. But when we offer a £40 disregard in family credit for the cost of looking after chidren, the same people say that the amount is far too low. They cannot have it both ways. It costs money to look after children and someone must pay for it. In the first instance, it should be the parents concerned.
I have included two other changes in the package. Henceforth, we shall include the entire cost of endowment mortgages up to £60,000, rather than trying to extract the with-profits element, which many people resented and

which was also an administrative hassle that slowed up the process of assessment. We are also remitting the collection fee where the agency does not collect money it is paid direct.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: One of the more tragic aspects of this legislation is the fact that families are now arguing whereas previously they did not argue, which is causing many problems for children. Moreover, families are arguing and children are suffering as a result.
Another effect is this. I have talked to contract construction workers in my constituency. They talk about going on the black economy. We do not like that. We oppose it and do not want it to happen. Others talk about emigrating. Were all those factors considered when the legislation was introduced? If the overall impact at the end of the day is that families further deteriorate, surely there must come a point where Ministers begin to consider the whole legislation, and whether in principle it should be retained.

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman, who is an assiduous legislator, for which I give him credit, will have to tell us whether he considered any of those matters when the Bill was proceeding through the House. As to the black economy, he may be interested to know that, since the legislation was introduced, early evidence suggests that one of the successful consequences is that a number of people who were claiming income support withdrew their claim for it once their case was taken up by the agency and maintenance sought for them. One must assume that some were perhaps living with the alleged absent father—we call such cases collusive desertion—were living with someone else or were working and claiming at the same time. It is a benefit that such cases have been exposed. There are fewer of them now.
The overall impact of the changes is far more significant than many people realise. No one has yet experienced that benefit, but large numbers will soon experience a welcome reduction in their maintenance obligation. Let me give an example of how it will help in one or two specific cases. Take a father who is on £15,000 a year gross income, which works out at about £200 a week net after he has paid tax, national insurance contributions and half his pension contribution.
Suppose that he has one 12-year-old child by his former marriage, to whom he was paying £5 under a court order. He has remarried, and has a stepchild and a child of his own. Under the CSA rules prior to the changes, he would ultimately have had to pay £39 a week. Now, because of the changes that we have made, his maximum payment will be just £18 a week. So the new regulations will save him £21 a week.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the Secretary of State give way on a relevant point?

Mr. Lilley: I should like to finish this point.
If the same parent had twice the income—net weekly earnings of £400, or about £30,000 a year gross—and a £20 court order, he would have had to pay up to £111 a week before the changes. He will now benefit from phasing in and pay just £40 in the first six months, rising in £20 steps to a maximum of £87—a saving of nearly £24 a week. The agency is starting to implement those changes now. Last weekend it began the computer scan of all


existing cases. Tens of thousands of people will receive lower assessments as a result of the formula changes in the next few days. In addition, those who may benefit from phasing will receive a letter shortly about the new arrangements. I believe that there will be a significant shift in the atmosphere as the changes filter through.
I shall now deal with the specific proposals of the hon. Member for Garscadden. He called particularly for a discretionary appeal mechanism. That was considered as the original proposals went through Parliament. I believe that the Select Committee considered it, too. It decided against, because it would lead us back to precisely the problems that we experienced before under a discretionary system.
Of course, we have given parents the right to opt for a second tier review, by another officer, to ensure that their case has been properly handled. But that officer does not have discretion to override the formula. The trouble is that if anybody—be it a court or administrator—is given the discretion to transfer the cost of child maintenance to the taxpayer, people will increasingly resort to that. That is what happened under the court-based system. Any open-ended review will amount to a return to the system that clearly failed us as a whole.
The list of items that can be given priority over the parents' duty to their children will be progressively lengthened. I recall a case that was in the newspapers a little while ago of a lady whose case was taken under the court system. The court gave priority over the cost of maintaining the children that she was looking after—those of her former husband—and gave precedence to the cost of his holiday in Bermuda and the cost of his pet food. I believe that children are more important. Indeed, they are the top priority.

Mr. Derek Enright: rose—

Mr. Lilley: I shall make a little more progress, as I have been rather slow.
New Zealand has allowed appeal to the court to override the formula—albeit on what they thought would be restricted grounds. Huge numbers have resorted to it. The courts have been swamped, and the system seems to have become unworkable and is having to be reviewed. The hon. Member for Garscadden holds up the Australian system as a model. That is very far from allowing a review body discretion to override the formula in the light of circumstances that the rules might not have foreseen.
On the contrary, the Australian system allows adjustments in only a few highly specific and foreseen circumstances. Indeed, the Australian Government have made it clear that the whole purpose is to limit the use of discretion and to uphold the integrity of the formula.
In a recent report that they gave to their Select Committee, the Australian Government said:
The child support legislation provides certain specified grounds for departure from formula assessment. These grounds are based on certain costs and are deliberately and closely prescribed. This is to ensure that the integrity of the formula is preserved and that there is not a reversion to a highly discretionary process for determining child support amounts based on the views and values of an individual judge, or an individual child support officer. That is important in protecing fiscal savings and the taxpayers' interests.

Mr. Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the system and the formula in Australia is far cruder than the system in this country, and that one of the reasons why they have a right of appeal is to deal with that problem? In this country we have a much more sophisticated approach through the CSA.

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The formula in Australia is based on the gross income of two years ago. It makes no specific allownace for tax, national insurance, pension or housing costs. Nor does it set a floor of protected income for second families, let alone stepchildren. The main task of the Australian system of overrides is to adapt their formula to take account of many of the features that are automatically assessed by our formula. Their overrides can be more limited than what we provide for automatically.
For example, in Australia, an absent parent will have to ask to have his child support reduced to take account of his housing costs. He may well not succeed. We provide automatically for housing costs in our formula. Nor does the Australian system allow any appeal for travel-to-work costs, any more than ours does.
Another factor that the hon. Member for Garscadden failed to mention about the Australian system is that, on balance, it increases the burden on absent parents, raising maintenance awarded to the mother with care. Fewer than half of fathers' appeals are upheld, but nearly 90 per cent. of mothers' appeals are granted. Moreover, reductions in maintenance costs awarded to absent fathers result in only a £5 a week diminution. Yet increases awarded to the mother average three times as much.
It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that he wants an appeal system, but would strictly limit the grounds of entry. He thereby holds out to everybody the hope that their special circumstances would be taken into account. Yet in his fine print he admits that most would be excluded. Until he is forthcoming about the grounds on which the formula could be overridden, he is trying to sell us a pig in a poke.

Mr. John Spellar: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Australian system is not retrospective? That question goes to the root of most of the problems that we encounter in our surgeries.

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is quite right, and the Opposition have no proposals to change the current arrangements in that regard.

Sir Jim Spicer: Few hon. Members want an open-ended appeal system; but we have all encountered several cases that no formula would fit. People on both sides of such cases are unhappy, and they desperately need to be catered for. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that such difficult cases will be dealt with sympathetically? Will he also assure me—I know that such an assurance has already been given, but it is worth asking for it again—that the entire process will be kept under review continually? The current system has been operating for only six months; it will take a long time for it to settle down, and for the rough edges to be smoothed.

Mr. Lilley: I hope very much that many of the cases that have caused us most concern will benefit from the changes. I repeat that we will keep the system under review, and examine cases brought to us by hon. Members to ensure that we have got it right.

Mr. Enright: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Lilley: I have given way a few times already; this is not Question Time.
The hon. Member for Garscadden mentioned the clean break principle. He rightly reaffirmed that there cannot be, never has been and should not be a clean break between parents and children: the courts have never accepted that, and the Crozier case confirmed the point. It was stated at the time of that case that, precisely because it had always been possible for both parents and the Department of Social Security to seek changes in maintenance orders, no fundamental change had been made in that respect; the only alteration had been in the mechanism whereby maintenance assessments were updated, in connection with recipients on income support.
The asessment relating to the applicant in the Crozier case, in fact, had been increased as a result of a DSS application under the old system. It happened then, and it can happen now. [Interruption.] The statement did not apply solely to that case; its import was that, because the possibility existed, the position was as the judge decided it had to be.
The hon. Member for Garscadden suggested that we should adopt the Australian system, because it would allow a reduction of up to 25 per cent. in maintenance assessments to take account of the impact of property transfers between husband and wife as part of a clean break settlement. Under our system, it is possible to secure a larger reduction: if an absent father earning, say £20,000 a year transfers his £40,000 equity in the jointly owned house, and must therefore take out a further £40,000 mortgage to house himself subsequently, our formula—taking account of the effect on his housing costs—may reduce his maintenance assessment by more than 25 per cent. I agree with the findings of the Select Committee, which specifically stated that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was right: our formula could not take account of the impact clean break settlements in a better way.
I have already dealt, essentially, with the hon. Gentleman's proposal for a disregard. According to him, a £10-a-week disregard would cost the taxpayer £340 million. Every penny would come from the taxpayer, and not a penny would go towards helping the absent parents who are responsible for the problems that we now encounter in our surgeries; perversely, such a move would create an incentive for parents to split up by increasing the amount that they would receive as a result of such action, relative to the amount received by parents who stayed together, and would also create a disincentive to work.
Maintenance is valuable to mothers even when it does not directly remove their dependence on benefit, it provides them with the stepping stone back to work that many of them want. We have responded rapidly to problems that the whole House has recognised, having considered the well-thought-out proposals of the Select Committee. I believe that the impact of the changes that we have made will be far greater than many hon. Members perceive; but we need to let those changes take effect. We must be careful to ensure that we do not empty our surgeries of angry absent fathers, and fill them with angry mothers who have been left to care for their children.
We have shown our willingness to respond to problems. We will fulfil the promise that the Prime Minister and I have made and will continue to keep the system under

close review. I believe, however, that the changes should be allowed to bed down. We will keep the system under review, having given a gauge of our good intentions and our willingness to respond when difficulties emerge. I hope that the House will take this opportunity to reaffirm its support for the underlying principles of an Act that passed through the House unopposed, and—I believe—retains the support of the majority of British people.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Hon. Members will be aware that the 10-minute rule is now operating. I urge them to speak even more concisely, to earn the gratitude of others.

7 pm

Mr. Nigel Jones: Of course I accept the underlying principles of the Child Support Act 1991; but Liberal Democrats welcome the chance to debate the issue again, especially in view of the Minister of State's wholly inadequate response last week.
Like many other hon. Members, since last summer I have received what has seemed to be a never-ending stream of visitors to my weekly surgeries—people complaining of the workings of the Child Support Agency. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux regards 1,000 evidence forms a year on any one subject as a sign that something is pretty seriously wrong; on this subject, it received 290 evidence forms in October, and 430 in November. That suggests that something is indeed seriously wrong, and that the Act requires a fundamental review.

Mr. Heald: During last week's debate on the new regulations, the Liberal Democrat spokesman said that his party would support the Government. When it came to the vote, that did not happen. What is the party's position today? What changes should be made? Tell us.

Mr. Jones: I shall come to that later. As for my party's reason for opposing the Government, the Minister of State had given a totally inadequate response: when asked about the future, he did not reply, so we decided to register our protest.
The spell-checker on my word processor rejects the initials "CSA", suggesting an alternative. It must be American, because its proposed alternative is "CIA". Some of those affected by the workings of the Child Support Agency have thought up some interesting names of their own, including some not very polite ones—for instance, "Complete Shambles Agency" and one that I particularly deplore, "Lilley's Gestapo".
When the issue was first debated in 1991, my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said that he considered the concept that parents should be responsible for their children's maintenance "entirely unexceptionable". That is still the case; we support the principles behind the Act. My hon. Friend, however, was worried by the possibility that the DSS had adopted what he described as a "somewhat knee-jerk approach", pointing out:
Civil servants will always look for a quick administrative fix, but in doing so they may create difficulties for the child support officers for which the Bill provides".—[Official Report, 4 June 1991; Vol. 192, c. 211.]
How right he was. It is symptomatic of recent legislation that we are constantly debating, and the Government are


constantly amending legislation that was enacted only in the past few years, or, in the case of the Child Support Act, the past few months.
Much of the debate on the Child Support Act in the House and outside has focused on the problems of fathers faced with high demands for maintenance.
There is a fundamental problem with the modern Conservative party: it underrates the amount that people can pay in taxation, and overrates with equal consistency the amount that people can afford out of the other pocket, which is labelled private.
The alleged Labour tax bombshell in the 1992 general election was £1,250 a year. My noble Friend Earl Russell has an interesting formula: when he hears of someone's maintenance assessment being increased by £2,800 a year, he says that his assessment has been increased by 2·3 bombshells. When the Leader of the Opposition was shadow Chancellor, had he proposed to increase people's taxes by £2,800 a year, the Conservative party would have gone apoplectic and used the term "tax holocaust".
At the last general election, the Liberal Democrats proposed increasing tax by 1p to pay for better education. One of my constituents has had his maintenance increased to 150 per cent. of his income tax. I cannot imagine what Conservative Central Office would have said if the Liberal Democrats had proposed a tax rate of 37·5 per cent.
The amounts being demanded by the Child Support Agency will have to come down. No one should be expected to pay more maintenance than income tax. There are many worthy causes for complaint and we have heard some examples today, but we cannot escape the fact that having families is an expensive business. I have three demanding children so I know about that. Maintaining two families is even more expensive. Because of or perhaps despite that, the difficult obligations of fathers must not become more important than the rights of children. We must not lose sight of the fact that children must come first.
The Government must act once and for all to bring about a fundamental review to clear up the problems surrounding the Child Support Agency. They must make clear tonight exactly what they plan to do. Shilly-shallying and saying that they plan to keep it closely under review are just weasel words. Too many families are suffering.
Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire warned that the Government risk losing all-party support not for the fundamental principles of the Act but for the operation of the Act if they refuse to take prompt action. The Liberal Democrats are one step away from calling for the Act to be scrapped and for a fresh start.
The Government can save money in other ways. They should make a serious attempt to help marriages survive. It is a staggering fact that at some time in their lives, 50 per cent. of children under 16 will live in a home without both biological parents.
Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, in one of the bluntest speeches I have ever heard from him—he is normally a mild-mannered man of the Clark Kent newspaper reporter variety—said that there would have to be a properly funded conciliation service. Organisations such as Relate are scratching around for money to provide counsellors for those whose relationships are in difficulty.
Proper child care services and nursery education might

help to save marriages and remove the need for the CSA to step in. Research in the United States shows that every dollar spent on nursery education is worth seven dollars later.
The Social Security Select Committee has already suggested several changes to the Act and the Government have implemented 3·5 out of 13. The Government must allow greater flexibility in the formula. It is simply not possible to put people in the straitjacket of a formula and expect the right results every time. We are dealing with human beings, and all individuals are different. We have all heard of ludicrous demands being made on absent parents who do not have sufficient disposable income.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jones: No. I have given way before and as there is a 10-minute limit on speeches, I shall not give way again.
Absent parents who have made a commitment to their children in non-pecuniary ways, risk losing touch with their children because the cost of travel is not taken into account.
What will happen to the clean break settlements entered into in good faith by both parties. Since the Child Support Act, clean break settlements are effectively dead, yet when relationships break down, it is often in the interests of children that they can remain in the same home and school and keep the same friends. The Government should compare the system with that in Australia.
What about travel-to-work costs? Surely the formula has to include an assessment of disposable not gross income. Travel-to-work costs bite deeply into people's available income. The Government must make a choice either to treat as allowable expenses certain activities they do not wish to stop—and I suggest that they should encourage people to go to work—or they must accept that some people will give up such activities.
Each case is different and the effect on second partners cannot be overstated. There is bound to be animosity between first and subsequent partners. Why does not the Department of Social Security talk to the Inland Revenue? It would be another way of saving money. Most of the information about the income and outgoings of a household is held by the Inland Revenue and computers are clever enough to avoid the unnecessary duplication of form filling demanded by the CSA. Why should taxpayers pay for the CSA to investigate absent parents who are on income support?
The Child Support Act was and remains right in principle, but it is turning out to be a disaster in practice. Tonight the Minister must promise fundamental reform, or he will damage families and children alike. I know of a six-year-old child in my constituency—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Robert Hicks: Like the majority of my parliamentary colleagues who were Members of Parliament in 1991, I supported the legislation. We all knew about unfortunate cases involving women who were desperate because they could get no satisfaction or payment of maintenance through existing court procedures. They were unhappy about the previous arrangements, and understandably so. As a consequence


the Government were right to introduce measures designed to correct a social injustice about which we all agree, irrespective of where we sit in the Chamber.
I accept the principles underlying the new system. Both parents should be responsible for maintaining their children and the state should be involved only when parents do not have the means to support those children. Having supported the legislation and the creation of the Child Support Agency, I am disappointed by the adverse practical effects.
All Members of Parliament receive scores of representations—[Interruption.] Some of my hon. Friends say, "No." I can speak only for the south-west. During the past six months, the volume of representations to me has been almost as high as those on animal welfare. That may not be significant outside, but it certainly is among my parliamentary colleagues.
There is no doubt that people are anxious and annoyed. To be as fair and objective as possible, I should add that, although the majority of those representations come from constituents who feel aggrieved at the new financial arrangements, they are not alone. I have also received complaints from single mothers about the response, or the lack of response, from the CSA in chasing up errant fathers. That is the very set of circumstances that we were led to believe, when the legislation passed through the House in 1991, would be the prime target of the CSA.
It is also relevant, on the basis of my constituency experience, that some of the alleged errant fathers are employed by organisations such as Her Majesty's armed forces, so the CSA should have no problems associated with identification and location in those situations.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hicks: No; I have only 10 minutes.
It would be fair to conclude that far too many people feel aggrieved. What is more—I have to agree with the sentiments that were expressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)—regrettably, people are experiencing an increasing loss of confidence in the operation of the CSA as a result of the way in which it has treated people whom all of us would regard as responsible and mature members of society.
Ministers must accept that the majority of complaints that I have received are genuine ones from individuals who not only pay their first wives on the basis of a court decision or mutually agreed private arrangement, but are attempting, in many instances, to establish a second relationship—a new life—with a second wife. Many of them have children of that second union. Of course, many of them, when breaking up with their first wife or partner, agreed a clean break solution, or what was perceived to be a clean break solution, between partners. We recognise, attempting to be objective about that situation, that there was always recourse to the courts in respect of the level of child maintenance payments.
The sad fact is that in certain instances the second permanent relationship, which may include children of that union, is placed in jeopardy, not only in financial terms but in personal terms.

Mrs. Gorman: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hicks: My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) says from a sedentary position that that is

not true. If she sits with me next Saturday week in my surgery in Callington, she will have tangible evidence to the contrary.
The danger to the second relationship must be avoided. I believe, therefore—to return to the sentiments of the hon. Member for Garscadden—that it is incumbent on all hon. Members, since we are all in this together, to find a satisfactory way forward.
How do we do that? First, we should change the formula for assessing child maintenance levels. Whatever may have been said by Ministers hitherto, it is evident to me that in its application it is too rigid and restrictive. The protected income element should be widened in some way. It should be remembered that in many instances the previous settlement was acceptable to both parents. We have all been told about the situation in which basic household costs—items such as travel-to-work costs and certain arrears and debts—are not included in the present assessment. There is therefore a strong case for extending the application of the assessment formula by including other regular financial commitments.
Secondly, in order to restore confidence in the whole system—whatever Ministers may say tonight—the Government's amendment says that they will continue to monitor the situation carefully; they must not dismiss now all possibilities for amending the existing arrangements, whether it be widening the formula or considering the question of some reference or appeal procedure. I hope that, when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State winds up, he will confirm that that is the Government's intention.
We must not rule out the possibility of introducing some type of review procedure. Any review officer, in my judgment, would also have to have some powers of discretion to bring a more human and sensitive dimenstion to the existing formula. Whatever may be said by some of my Conservative colleagues, in my judgment the present system is too mechanistic. I look to the Minister to introduce at some stage modifications that bring a greater sensitivity and understanding to what are delicate, and often sad, human situations.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I wish to reflect the indignation, resentment and anger of many of my constituents at the Child Support Agency adn the legislation that begat it. One could mention many arguments, but in 10 minutes they could not all be included, so I will mention merely a few.
First, the fathers who have come to my surgeries and whom I have also met at meetings are not absent fathers. They resent being described as "absent fathers". They have legal access to their children. They exercise their rights of access; they love their children; they pay their maintenance payments, whether they are voluntary or court-imposed agreements; they take their children out, usually at weekends; they buy them presents and clothes; and they try to do their best, in difficult circumstances, for their children.
It may seem an insignificant point, but I hope that Ministers will stop referring to my constituents—the people I have met—as "absent fathers". They are not absent fathers. They try to look after their children. Let us


not draw any moral conclusions as to the reasons why there are two families. We have learnt enough about that during the past few weeks not to moralise on those matters.
Secondly, this is not a men versus women issue, as a writer in The Guardian tried to imply the other day—The Guardian, as we know, is out of touch about those matters. Most of the men who visit me are accompanied by their second wife. Most of the meetings that I have attended have been represented almost 50:50 by men and women. The second wife is often deeply resentful because she is a human being and a person in her own right.
As a result of the patterns of employment in the country, often she not only works but also earns more money than her husband. In constituencies such as mine, many are professional women. They therefore resent being hounded, as they see it, by the Child Support Agency. They also resent finding that up to one third of their income can be taken into account in making the assessment.

Dr. Lynne Jones: The Secretary of State quoted the example of a man with an income of £15,000 who would be helped by the changes in the review. However, if he had a new wife who had part-time earnings of £60 a week, he would be no better off.

Mr. Davies: rose—

Mr. Lilley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: I must continue. I have only 10 minutes.
Such women resent the fact that apparently up to one third of their income can be taken into account and, in effect, aggregated. They have been brought up under successive Conservative Chancellors who, in the taxation system, have made it clear that women should be taxed independently; that there should be disaggregation of income.
They understand their income as being their own, yet they find now that their income, or some of it, has to be taken into account. They resent the intrusion into their privacy when the Child Support Agency asks them for their income.

Several Hon. Members: indicated dissent.

Mr. Davies: It is no good Conservative Members shaking their heads. If they will not give their income, a deemed income is estimated in order to get to the one third. Those are independent women, who work for their family and who resent the intrusion into their privacy that the legislation imposes on them.
My third worry is the element of retrospection. I am old-fashioned and I remember debates in the House when all parties agonised over retrospective legislation, not only in the case of the liberty of the subject but in property arrangements, taxation and other spheres. The modern Conservative party has thrown the rule of law out of the window. Such issues are no longer matters of concern to modern Conservatives. It is extraordinary that I should have to remind Conservative Ministers that retrospective legislation that overthrows property arrangements and agreements is apparently acceptable.
Proudhon would have been proud of the Secretary of State, who is apparently a right-wing Member of the Government. He understands property matters, but he

stood at the Dispatch Box to defend retrospective legislation that overturns not only private property arrangements but arrangements imposed by and pronounced in a court of law.
One of my constituents understands the situation very well. He told me that, at the end of the day, he did not mind having to pay what a judge told him to pay. He had been to court and sat through an inquiry which cost him £4,000. It was a traumatic experience for him and his ex-wife, but the judge pronounced. He resented the fact that a civil servant, in accordance with a mere formula, could overturn the arrangement and tell him what he should pay.
Does the Secretary of State know of any other administrative agency that transfers money from one private citizen to another?

Mr. David Shaw: The Inland Revenue.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman has been making stupid comments from a sedentary position for a while, and he is getting even more stupid. The Inland Revenue does not transfer money from one private citizen to another; it transfers money to an individual or takes money from an individual.
I repeat my question: do the Secretary of State or the Minister know of any administrative agency—not a court of law—that orders one private citizen to transfer his money to another private citizen?

Mr. Burt: rose—

Mr. Shaw: I have only 10 minutes. I am sure that the Minister will get a note from a civil servant; he can reply then.
The Government have imposed a monster—

Mr. Burt: rose—

Mr. Davies: I am not giving way.

Mr. Burt: rose—

Mr. Davies: I am not giving way. The Minister of State will have half an hour in which to wind up the debate but I have only 10 minutes.

Mr. Burt: I am not a Minister of State.

Mr. Davies: No, and I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman ever will be, after today's debate.
Fourthly, I deal with travel to work, which is not a problem only in the south-east. A constituent of mine who is a lorry driver came to see me. At 4 am every day, he has to drive to a lorry park to pick up his lorry. His travel-to-work costs are 50 per cent. of his net take-home pay. There is no way he can afford what he is supposed to pay under the new child support arrangements, and pay to get to work to earn the money in the first place. It is ridiculous to suggest that the problem applies only to the south-east.
The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), who mentioned the Inland Revenue, is knowledgeable about tax matters. If an individual can prove that his expenditure is fully justified, I do not understand why it cannot be allowed against his assessment, as happens with the Inland Revenue's calculations.
I end by referring again to my constituent, who resented being told by civil servants how much he would have to pay. He is not a professional person, but an ordinary working man. He queried whether the system—the


intrusion on his privacy, the overthrowing of arrangements, the spying on people, the overturning of court agreements and the lack of an appeal or hearing—were very British. I am sorry but I had to say that, after 14 years of arrogant government under the Tories, it seems to have become a very British system. It is a system that flies in the face of the rule of law.

Mr. Heald: The Opposition voted for it.

Mr. Davies: But the Conservative party is the party of government, and it has to do something about it.
If the Secretary of State thinks that this issue will go away, he is making a big mistake. The system is fundamentally flawed and will have to be changed. If it is not, it will probably bring down the Government and the Tory party.

Mr. Richard Alexander: The Child Support Act 1991 has benefited some people—for example, lone mothers whose male partners have not supported them in the past, but have deserted them and been traced, and are now being made to pay proper maintenance for their child or children. However, for others the Act has become a bureaucratic nightmare, with which hon. Members, legal advisers and others are unable to deal. Unless something is done, I fear that the beneficial aspects of the Act will be far outweighed by the hardship that it is inducing in many people.
Legal advisers are telling their clients that they cannot understand the elaborate formulae that have been devised. They can tell them, however, that there is no appeal against the CSA's findings—only a review conducted by the very civil servants who made the assessment in the first place. It is not in accordance with natural justice that the assessment of child maintenance should be completely removed from the courts and applied by civil servants in accordance with ever-changing rules. Nor does it seem fair that CSA decisions can be retrospective.
I am aware that the clean break settlements between the parties can never be clean breaks for the children. I am also aware that too many fathers were leaving their children dependent on income support. I do not resile from that. However, when civilised arrangements have been made between parties to a former marriage, often sanctioned by the courts, it is wrong and unfair that those arrangements should be wholly ignored when calculating what is proper for a parent to pay for the maintenance of a child.
Civil servants now substitute their judgments for those of the parties and the courts—not for future cases, which would be understandable, but for past cases, in which parties have lived for many years under the arrangements. Those arrangements have been made within the law and often have the sanction of the law.
I have had to deal with many cases relating to the CSA. There have been many such cases in my constituency, but perhaps not so many in the constituencies of colleagues who are happier with the way in which the Act is working. No one has questioned the need for the Act, but, in every case with which I have dealt, the couple—it is usually a couple, not only a father—have said that the pendulum has swung too far against so-called absent fathers, and that there is very little fairness in the way the system operates.
As the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) said, it is often unfair to describe these fathers as "absent"

fathers. They try to maintain close relationships with their children, but those relationships are being made more difficult by the demands of the CSA.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) to accept that we have to allow second families to live decently. It is not only the children of first marriages whom we must look after—second families must live decently, too. We must be more compassionate in calculating a father's protected income.
These days, the mobility of labour means that travel-to-work costs must be taken into account. Certainly in my constituency it is often difficult to find work without travelling away from home. Travel-to-work costs, the costs of travelling to see one's children who are often in distant parts, the insurance on a second home, the council tax and water rates are all essentials in a second marriage. They are not luxuries. Because the assessment is so high, many parents also believe that the costs even of employing a child minder should be taken into account as essential.
I have been dismayed to be told by fathers about the way in which they have been treated by the CSA. They have reported indifference, rudeness and smart alick answers. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that civil servants are encouraged to show more humanity than they have hitherto shown to many of my constituents? Unless we tackle the way in which people are dealt with, we shall have produced a system that is inhumane and builds up resentment, which will not be easily forgotten. It is often the decent parent who is penalised under the regulations. Violent partners often escape, as women whose former partners were violent are not obliged to name them.
Parents have said that the Child Support Act 1991 is squeezing them, even when they have usually done everything to maintain their financial and emotional links with their children. The result is an enormous strain on second marriages. I urge hon. Members and the Minister not to be blind to the unacceptable pressure that swingeing, unfair demands place on second marriages. Taking any of the second wife's income into account penalises someone with no responsibility for the children of the first marriage.
I support the Government's proper concern for the children of the first marriage, but I doubt their lack of obvious care and compassion for the effects on children of the second marriage. I am anxious that my right hon. Friend should be aware of that. We can all accept the broad aims of the Act—there has been little dispute about that across the Chamber—but it will not save money for the taxpayer if its operation breaks second unions and encourages fathers to give up their work and their family responsibilities.
Many of those who have been to see me say that that is what they will probably have to do—and that is not an empty threat. We must not create clear financial advantages for people to be feckless and unemployed, and stay single rather than marry, if there are children from a first marriage.
I support the ideas and aims of the Act, but my charge relates to its unfairness, unpredictability, retrospection and lack of an appeal mechanism. Another serious charge is that it may discourage many men from marrying for a second time, and thus increase the number of never-married single parents. I urge my right hon. Friend to give greater thought to many of those implications, and to do so soon.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: The Act imposes punitive assessments on non-resident parents and, in the overwhelming majority of cases, resolutely refrains from passing on any maintenance to the parent with care. It causes turbulence in the lives of countless children of first and second families. Families who have come through bitter times to reach an uneasy peace are thrown back into the melting pot, causing turbulence.
If the Act were really about children, first and foremost it would consider the roof over the head of the child. The Act does no such thing; it endangers the roof over the head of the child. The Minister cast much scorn on clean break settlements, but they were proposed and, indeed, encouraged by courts and by the Government in 1984 to preserve homes. That was a worthy objective.
The Secretary of State said that that objective was still taken into account because the parent's next mortgage would be taken into account. But not all non-resident parents have another mortgage. Some of them rent and some live with relations. The housing costs of those who live with relations are not even counted. The housing benefit of their relation, however, is deducted. The Government try to have it both ways.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) that the retrospective element should be removed. In the future, it should be possible to make a notional calculation of equivalent income if a capital settlement is made to preserve the children's home. That is particularly important in view of the ferocious attacks made on the housing rights of lone parents by the Government. Under the Act, children may lose their homes, but not even have the rights of homeless families.
The punitive assessments do not count travel-to-work costs. Much has been said by Conservative Members about that and I agree with their comments. There is one danger; I would not like the Secretary of State to say that arrangements will be made if the travel-to-work cost is very high, as it may be if one commutes many miles to and from London. Some travel-to-work costs may not seem high to hon. Members, but they will seem high to many of my constituents on low wages.
Travel-to-work costs of £10 a week are common and they take a big slice out of the wages of many of my constituents. Those costs should be exempt, whatever their level. I agree with the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) that council tax and water rates should also be exempt. If parents defined such expenses as non-essential and refused to pay them, the courts would soon have something to say about that. Council tax and water rates are clearly essential expenses.
There should be a right of appeal and it should be widespread. It is normal to have an appeal system that is open to everyone who has a complaint. That system should allow special circumstances to be taken into account—not everybody lives a straightforward life. Some people have the "temerity" to take on responsibility for aged relatives. Is the cost of looking after such relatives taken into account? No, it is not. The appeal system and some discretion would allow such expenses to be taken into account. There should be a recognition of other responsibilities, as well as the cost of parenting and access.
Parents with care can also be worse off. It is often said that the great advantage of the maintenance benefit over income support is that it can be continued after one finds

a job. That theory is based on the assumption that there is a job to be found. The jobs of most women in my constituency pay low wages, which are getting lower as a result of Government policy. If those constituents claim family credit, they are allowed to keep the magnificent sum of £15; yet the absent or non-resident parent might be paying £100 a week. That is unsatisfactory. There should be a substantial disregard to provide an incentive and to put children first.
I tell the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State that, when the first statement was made on the proposal, I asked a critical question. My gut reaction was that nothing good would come of it. Unfortunately the Opposition were misled, because we actually believed the title of the White Paper—"Children Come First". In reality, children come last. Conservative Members talk about children as a burden on the taxpayer, which they want to transfer to parents. Only people such as they can think of children as a burden.
Last Wednesday one of the principles of the Act was enunciated by the Under-Secretary of State:
The principle that a natural child should have first call on a parent's income".
Just before that, he had said:
one of the principles of the Act was that parents should, as a priority, be responsible for their own natural children."—[Official Report, 2 February 1994; Vol. 236, c. 945.]
So if someone is trying to build a second family, in which there are stepchildren, and trying not to make the same mistakes that he made with his first family, that is just tough. The stepchildren are regarded as "unnatural" children. The Under-Secretary of State talked about "natural" childen and refused to take the cost of parenting stepchildren into account. The concept of deserving and undeserving children is disgusting; yet that is what the Conservative party is introducing into family life, and it will cause more family breakdowns.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli that this is not a matter of men against women. A woman spoke to me this week who has been driven to such despair that she is threatening suicide, because the Child Support Agency is threatening to deduct at source. She says that she will have no money left to live on. I have her budget here, and it is frugal in the extreme. That woman works six days a week and manages to bring home an income of £146 a week after tax and national insurance. She has been driven to threatening to commit suicide; she may not actually do that, but she will have a breakdown, and that will be a cost to the state. No wonder there is a big public sector deficit if that is the way affairs of state are managed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) talked about people being driven into a cul-de-sac, but it is worse than that; it is a trap, which is driving them to desperation—men, women and especially children. Children will see the disturbance and bitterness and they will feel responsible. Any calm that may have been achieved will be disturbed and if no calm has yet been achieved, the Act makes sure that it never will be. It is a disgraceful Act; indeed, its effect on family life makes it a wicked Act.
I speak as a Member of the House who believes in stable relationships and has a moral appreciation and a stable marriage. Conservative Members, with all their moralising, which is not in any way backed up by their personal



behaviour, are causing unlimited harm to countless children and other people who simply want to be able to live peaceful lives—

Mr. David Shaw: At the taxpayer's expense.

Mrs. Wise: There we hear it. There is the truth of it. They will not be able to sustain the tax cuts—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Sir Donald Thompson: I thank Ministers and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)—Ministers for the way in which they have looked after my constituency cases, and the hon. Member for Garscadden for having remained calm, sensible and reasonable.
There is no doubt in my mind that children should be the responsibility of their own parents. Everyone with whom I have spoken agrees with that—although I am not sure what the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) really believes. My speech will necessarily be brief, so people will have to read the rest of the debate and take the arguments about travel-to-work costs, absent fathers being consulted, and so on, from what other people have said.
There is a general acceptance of the Child Support Agency, but it cannot continue as it is. It must be continually reviewed, or it will ultimately damage the young women whom it is meant to help. Make no mistake; we must realise that there are thousands of women whom it can help. I went to a meeting about child support recently and before I set off a young lady rang me to say, "Don't let them bully you. There are a lot of us who are very glad that the Child Support Agency has turned up."
My three main concerns are flexibility, the clean break, and the mistakes that the CSA has made. The agency sometimes rolls on despite the wishes of the people likely to benefit from it. A lady in my constituency, whom I have known for some time and have helped with other problems, has two children by one marriage and now has another young child. She heard about family credit and applied for it by filling in the forms, but then she found that her former husband was immediately dunned by the CSA. The woman is appalled. She does not want to fall out with her former husband and is willing to give up the family credit. She and her new husband are willing to manage without it, but there is no retrospection and no unpicking the situation. The good relationship that the sons have with their father, who does not live with them any more but sees them every weekend, is now in jeopardy.
Flexibility must be the watchword of any new legislation and any changes that we make to it. But inflexibility is revealed in the following letter written by the CSA in Merseyside to a constituent of mine:
Further to my telephone conversation today, I am writing to confirm the information that you requested:

(i) Payments that are made monthly, are made monthly in arrears.
(ii) I asked you to pay £335·75 today for your regular maintenance whilst I clarified the position regarding your arrears.


Also it appears that an error has been made by the Child Support Agency and that the information previously given was incorrect.
I am looking into this matter".
As a result, my constituent says that he is now £800 in arrears, and he is bitter. He wrote to me:

I still find this very hard to believe that from the point of the CSA, that if things were left as originally planned, I would not be suffering with over £800 in arrears. So I have to suffer from somebody else's negligence. I await your comments".
I shall comment; I shall send him the Official Report of the debate, advise him to read it all and say that I have written to the Minister. As I have said, Ministers have been most courteous.
Finally, I shall deal with clean breaks. What are we to make of the following document from Keighley county court if it does not mean a clean break—not with the children but with the former wife—and that the money can be adjusted later? It is headed "By Consent", and continues by saying that one party is to get 75 per cent. and the other 25 per cent. of the goods and chattels when sold, and the house,
upon the parties acknowledging that neither has any further claim in respect of the contents of the former matrimonial home.
Referring to the child of the family, the document also says that there will be
periodical payments at the rate of £15.00 per week payable weekly until she shall atttain the age of 17 years … Upon compliance with Order 36 Rule 1 the Petitioner be at liberty to register the aforesaid periodical payments order in the appropriate Magistrates Court.
Finally, it says:
This Order be in full and final satisfaction of all claims the parties hereto have against each other of a capital and/or income nature and the Petitioner's prayer in the Petition for periodical payments for herself be dismissed.
That is a clean break. Or at least, back in 1989 the recipients of that document would have thought that it was a clean break. I can understand that £15 a week. The rates set out in a typically good document from the Library state that payments are made of £15 for children aged under 11, £22 for ages 11 to 15, £26 for ages 16 to 17 and so on. I can understand why the periodic increases should be set by the Child Support Agency, but my constituent says that he has had a clean break from his wife, so he wonders why he should have to pay £44 a week to look after his children. I could continue, but I shall not.
I was appalled in the previous debate at the ways in which the Opposition sneered at my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) when she tried to convey women's point of view. It was a poor display from Opposition Members who have mostly been compassionate. The Government are rightly trying to correct many things which were wrong in the original Bill. Hon. Members have unanimously accepted those elements.
Without being partisan, I feel that there is growing feeling among young women and in the country that the male-dominated unions are urging the Opposition to push the Government to return support for the child from the natural father or the parents to the taxpayer. The union lads are feeling disgruntled. Many of the constituents whom I have met are rightly fed up with the rough justice. If that pressure grows from the male-dominated unions, it will rebound on the Opposition and on the House.
I shall finish as I began. Parents are responsible for their children. To make that possible, the CSA will have to be continually reviewed in a flexible manner in ways in which we have heard already. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends will continue along that path.

Ms Mildred Gordon: The Secretary of State said that there are 1·3 million lone parents in the country and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that 70 per cent. of those are on income support. Of that figure, 53 per cent. are women who were married to the fathers of their children and who were separated or divorced and 32 per cent. were never married to the father. Considering those lone mothers, the fathers and the children together, one can see that the lives of a large percentage of the population will be affected by the Child Support Agency and by the Act. It was absolutely important that the Government got it right and, tragically, they got it so wrong.
The courts had a lot to answer for when they made maintenance assessments which were often low and which varied in different parts of the country. The system for pursuing defaulters was imperfect to say the least and there could have been a time lag if the father refused to appear in court. The system needed altering, but one important aspect that that system had in its favour was that the courts had discretion and they could assess all the valid factors when making a maintenance order.
The CSA has a rigid formula which has caused misery and fear and has wrecked relationships. The more people that it pursues, the more the turbulence, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) termed it, will increase. Groups throughout the country are mushrooming in opposition to the agency and the Act, which is unusual.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Gordon: I have only 10 minutes, so I shall not give way.
There is a clear divide in the House between Members who are worried about the enhancement of their electoral chances if the Government are not in a position to give another round of tax cuts and Members who think that the interests of children should come first. I am pleased to say that there are Members on both sides of the House who support the latter. The Act's purpose to facilitate tax cuts is clear because it has been said that only £1 in every £10 will go to the family and that the rest will go to the Treasury.
That tax-cutting angle is certainly clear when one takes into account the benefit penalty. I asked the Minister the other day if he would abolish that penalty. He answered that only 160 cases have been referred to the Benefits Agency for reduced benefit and that 20,500 cases where good cause was pleaded had been accepted. The Minister said that that was about 57 per cent. Therefore 43 per cent. of such cases have not been accepted.
Are they to be directed to suffer a benefit penalty? What about all the other mothers who have the threat of a benefit penalty hanging over their heads? No Government who care about children would have a benefit penalty for people on income support who are already below the poverty line so that £8·80 of their income is taken away—leaving less money for food, clothes and all the things that children need. That cannot be right. It is evil.
The collection fee should also be abolished. Mothers who feel that contact with absent fathers is threatening ask the agency to collect the maintenance. Those very fathers

threaten the mothers when they are asked to pay the collection fee. That fee will engender violence and should be abolished.
Another sore point is that of absent parents who are on income support and who are being pursued by the agency for a measly £2·20 a week. A constituent of mine is a father with care. His ex-wife is mentally ill and has been sectioned innumerable times. He has begged the agency not to force him to sign the form to pursue his wife because he says that it would drive her into hospital from where, drugged up to the hilt, she would phone and upset their child. Even if she receives the order, she would not be able to manage her affairs properly and would never regularly pay that £2·20, but he and the child would lose it. There are many such cases and the section should be abolished.
The Government will not have an income disregard for parents on income support because they think that that would be a disincentive to taking a job. However, they say that a £15 disregard for caring mothers will
enable them to take a job with considerably lower take-home pay than if there had been no disregard.
Those lucky women will be able to take a low-paid job in addition to looking after their family and doing the housework and can claim £15 a week disregard plus family credit.
Many, perhaps most, will be worse off, because they will get no help with the mortgage interest payments and no more free school meals—with a number of children that is significant. They will lose other passported benefits such as for glasses and for dental treatment and they may get £28, as the Government have promised, for child care. That may pay for looking after an older child after school until the mother comes home, but in my constituency, I believe that the standard rate for having a young child looked after all day is £90 to £100 a week. Mothers who need such care will be in trouble. In addition, on family credit, it takes six months to review a change in circumstances, whereas on income support, changes can be reviewed at once. Many of those mothers will be far worse off.
Fathers who have previously paid the mortgage payments on the home of their first families will have to choose whether to meet their CSA assessments or stop paying the mortgage, and repossessions will result. The Labour party will be monitoring carefully how many mothers and children will be thrown out of their homes because of that dreadful law.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) rightly said, separated fathers object to being called absent parents. One such father came to my surgery and told me that his former wife had moved to the north of England. Once a month, because he wants to keep close contact with his children, he pays a high fare to travel north. He has to rent a hotel room, pay for looking after the children for the weekend and take them out. It is expensive. After the assessment, he will not be able to afford that. He will become an absent father and he does not want to be one. He, his ex-wife and their children will all suffer. That cannot be right.
Separated fathers need a discretionary body, but the Government do not want one. What factors need to be taken into account? What factors require discretion? Travel to work is one. A commuter may pay £2,000 to £3,000 a year, and even when the cost is less, it is a significant part of a person's income, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston said. No account is taken of the cost of travel to see children, the cost of keeping them, the cost of taking them


out and the cost of providing treats and all the extras that children need, such as sports gear. There is no discretion about that. There is no discretion about the cost of looking after elderly parents. There is no discretion about paying the mortgage for the first family. Voluntary payments are ignored.
When an assessment is made, it applies from the date that the maintenance inquiry form has been sent out. That can create huge arrears. The courts used to take past maintenance paid into account and they gave credit for it. All those matters require a discretionary body which could take them into account. This is real life; we cannot use an abstract formula to rule people's lives and drive them to despair.
A constituent who was deeply in debt came to see me. He had been honourably paying off his debts, which he had incurred because of illness. He has now been assessed and he will not be able to continue to pay off his debts. He does not know what to do. He said, "Shall I give up my job? What shall I do? I cannot pay my debts and pay the assessments." He was already making voluntary payments and buying equipment and clothes for his child.
Another factor that has not been taken into account is that of families abroad. There are immigrant fathers in my constituency who have children abroad and who send money to them. No discretion is allowed there.
The case for a discretionary body is irrefutable. Such a body could take a family's whole situation into account. In our debate last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said that the Government had got it wrong, that the agency should be wound up and that they should start again. I fully agree. We need a system that is responsible and workable and which puts the interests of children first.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: It is clear that the Opposition are speaking with many different voices in the debate. They would have been better advised not to press the matter to a Division tonight. I do not believe that they foresaw the current situation any more than the rest of us did. The reasoned amendment moved by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on Second Reading of the Child Support Bill contained not a hint of the problems that might arise for absent parents.

Miss Joan Lestor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Haselhurst: No.

Miss Lestor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Haselhurst: No.
Opposition criticism then centred mainly on the welfare of the children and on the needs of the caring parent. For most of the time, they looked in the opposite direction. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) seems to be getting quite excited about what I am saying. She came nearer than any other Opposition Member to recognising that there might be some problems of the type with which we have been preoccupied in this debate. By and large, it is clear from the reports of the Committee and Report stages that the Labour party was looking in completely the opposite direction and cannot claim now to have foreseen the present problems. I find it faintly odd that Labour Members now seek to present themselves as

leading the pack in defence of the absent parent. Although I am critical of the status quo, I shall not be tempted into the Labour Lobby this evening.
I am content to rely on the continuing close review offered by the Government. I note, however, the words in the Government's amendment:
as further experience is gained".
Considerable evidence is accumulating and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will take good note of it and learn some of the lessons from it.
It would be preferable for this debate to be approached not in a spirit of partisanship, but in a shared acceptance that our scrutiny process at the time of the Child Support Bill was defective. Many of us simply did not anticipate what was to follow the implementation of a reform that we were all happy to support in principle. We may have accepted that it would change people's lives, but we did not realise how drastic the change would be in may cases. If 'we are honest—one or two of us have been very honest in this debate—some of us thought that the legislation was directed mainly at absconding rather than merely absent parents.
The main problem has been the dramatic nature of the change that we have wrought. Fairly or not, divorced parents have lived their lives on certain assumptions. New marriages have been made and new families have been created. It may be right for Parliament to impose suddenly on those people the judgment that they must bear a heavier responsibility for their natural children, but we must at the same time appreciate the impact that that can have on the life they are now leading and on the people who are part of that life. The CSA has seemed, in many cases, to have no appreciation of the effect that swingeing increases in maintenance payments will have.
The affected people feel that they are being retrospectively censured for doing something that was not in itself wrong—separating from an unhappy marriage and starting all over again. The new demands have been the cause of worry and despair which, in some cases, has turned to tragic extremes. When society's judgment about what parents in this position should pay is being delivered with seemingly impervious bureaucratic zeal by the Child Support Agency, their despair turns to deep resentment. Many of us have felt that deep resentment in our mail bags and through our surgeries over the past few months.
Like many of my hon. Friends, I am very unimpressed by the performance of the CSA. It has been bad in responding to the anxious queries of the clients whom it has contacted. Its response to letters from Members of Parliament has, for the most part, been extremely wooden. If the explanation for the poor performance of the CSA is that it is overwhelmed with work, that is surely a reason for implementing the new requirements more gradually and on a phased basis. Ministers seemed to be under pressure from the Opposition throughout our proceedings on the Child Support Bill to promise that everything would be done with all possible speed. The Opposition are the last to have the right to criticise the Government for some of the consequences.
We have been told that 50 per cent.—I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State suggested that the figure might be more than 50 per cent.—of the cases so far tackled by the agency are those in which no maintenance at all has been paid. If that is the case, why did not the agency confine itself exclusively to such cases to start with? Why did it not get those out of the way before


moving on to people who had already made settlements, as my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) has recently described?
The trouble with the formula is that it gives insufficient regard to the current circumstances of the client. I welcomed very much the changes that we approved last week. They may make life bearable in a number of cases. It is perfectly fair for the Government to say that not until those changes have been implemented can we see the effect on assessments. The mists may then clear, allowing us to gauge the degree of injustice that may remain. On that count, it is right for the Government to say in retaliation to the Opposition that their motion is premature as well as presumptuous.
However, I contend that the formula is not right. Mention has been made of clean breaks, and I emphasise that too. It may be difficult to quantify, but the plain fact is that a property settlement, heavily biased in favour of the parent with care at the expense of ongoing maintenance and accepted as a reasonable deal by a court, affects the resources available to the person who becomes the absent parent. A greater allowance in the formula for housing costs is simply not adequate compensation for some of the housing and financial settlements that were made. My right hon. Friend should not rely on generalities in dismissing that factor altogether from the equation.
I also add emphasis to what has been said about travel-to-work costs. It may be easy from an administrative point of view to want to ignore those costs, but they are creating genuine difficulty in many cases. On the clean break factor and the travel to work factor, I ask my hon. Friends to look at the consequences of making such sweeping exclusions from the formula. In some cases, it is having a devastating and totally unfair effect.
In conclusion, the figures contained in the formula still need some moderation, even if it takes longer to reduce the burden on taxpayers. Taxpayers have borne the burden for many years. We now have arrangements in sight which are intended to reduce that burden, and I do not disagree with that. Surely, the speed with which we reduce the burden must be governed with an eye on the effect on those who will be affected.
There needs to be some further degree of phasing. I want to hear less about administrative convenience in any future discussions of this matter, and more about fairness to all the parties concerned. It cannot be right to have swung the pendulum so violently that we have shifted the misery and deprivation across the spectrum from the parent with care to the absent parent.
All I say to the Government is that we must recognise that this is not yet a closed chapter. We must have a guarantee of more attention to the details which many hon. Members have raised tonight, and a promise of further action if equity so dictates. Surely, all of us want to ensure that we get the balance right in determining how the burden should lie between the various parties involved in these matters.

Dr. Joe Hendron: I think that all hon. Members agree with the principle that parents have the responsibility of looking after their children, certainly in

my territory of west Belfast, where there is great poverty and deprivation and, for many reasons, there are many lone parents.
I shall start by making a point about poverty and the lone parent and her children. The majority of lone parents, certainly in my constituency and in other parts of Northern Ireland and elsewhere, experience various degrees of poverty. Their children require a coherent strategy of family support covering social security and child care and a positive employment strategy, rather than an approach that is characterised by a single Act solution, as in the Child Support Act 1991.
Punitive measures have been referred to a number of times. Such measures for achieving compliance with the operations of the Child Support Agency will risk further disadvantaging children in lone-parent families who rely on benefit, as well as the second families of absent parents. As to family violence, it is important to appreciate that theemphasis placed on parents to provide information about the identification and tracing of liable parents fails to recognise that some mothers have good reasons for refusing to name an absent father.
I make no apology for referring directly to my constituency of west Belfast where, no matter what indications of deprivation are used—whether it is the Jarman index of social deprivation or social class distribution—there is more deprivation per 1,000 of the population than anywhere else on these islands. I should point out that in, west Belfast, there are more people in prison per 1,000 of the population than anywhere else on these islands. Taking those points together, one realises that the question of the lone parent is a major one.
As I said, the emphasis on parental responsibility is welcome. Many hon. Members have put great emphasis on that. Unfortunately, most fathers are not responsible for the children when parents separate. The people who must be looked after are the children. The hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) made many of those points earlier and I congratulate her on an excellent speech.
Family breakdowns, terms of maintenance and related child care disputes are complex and stressful. Families in that position need a co-ordinated package of support services. It must therefore be clear that detailed monitoring of the implementation of the Act is fundamental in assessing whether the objectives of decreasing child poverty and increasing parental responsibility are achieved.
Inclusion of the personal allowance for the caring parent in the maintenance bill conflicts with the recent adoption of divorce legislation which promotes a clean break between partners, and may be strongly resented by caring parents and absent parents alike. I appreciate the fact that that point has been covered by a number of hon. Members.
Another point is that the provision for children with disabilities and special needs requires additional costs. I am not convinced that that aspect was covered adequately in the legislation. What we need is a comprehensive child care policy—that is what should be developed. The Child Support Agency should not undertake any child support activities on behalf of a family without the formal authorisation of at least one of the parents. Parents should also have the right to appeal against a proposed maintenance assessment before its implementation. Finally, there should be a continuing review of child care and child support.

Mr. David Shaw: I oppose the Opposition's motion because I believe that they are morally wrong. They are supporting the continuance of anti-social behaviour and seeking to undermine the position of 1 million single mothers. They are arguing that pensioners and others on low incomes should pay more for the children of absent fathers. That is wrong.
During Prime Minister's questions today, the Leader of the Opposition showed his skills as a lawyer. Three years ago, he used his skills as a lawyer to support the Child Support Bill and the Child Support Agency. Today, he used his skills to undermine the Act and the 5,000 staff in the Child Support Agency. Having made a tough decision, he now finds that he cannot live with it and seeks to run away from it. That is not acceptable.
The Child Support Act is, first and foremost, about children. It is concerned with the priority of parents in relation to their children. If people have children, they must make up their minds whether they will be responsible for them, or try to pass them over to other people. It is surprising and sad that the low priority some absent parents give the first family is often seen in our constituency surgeries. It is sad that not enough attention is paid to the first family by absent parents in their second family.
Recently, I was extremely saddened by one case that came to my office whereby the second family showed in their budget that they put a higher priority on dog food than on the child in the first family. I was staggered that dog food appeared in the long list of items of expenditure that were deemed to be a higher priority than the child in the first family. That is not acceptable. We cannot expect the child in the first family to go without so that the dog in the second family can be properly fed.
The old system was totally unfair. It was inconsistent and the administration often broke down. In our constituency surgeries, we saw many cases where that happened. I have seen court assessments for £15 a week or less. They are totally unacceptable. Such assessments meant that pensioners and others on low incomes had to pay for the children, and the absent fathers were simply not paying.
We are concerned not just with taxpayers but with the children of taxpayers. We must make sure that they have equality of treatment and that those children in a one-family situation do not suffer so that absent fathers can have two or more families. Priority must be given to those families who are united and who intend to stay together, otherwise many more families will break up.
The work of the CSA and what is contained in the Act should be supported. I wish to make a few comments about the CSA's work. I have met the local staff in my constituency, and they are courteous, knowledgeable, and well trained. They deserve the support of hon. Members, and it is sad that not enough has been said in their support today.
I should also like to pay tribute to those who work in the Hastings regional office. I took up a case on Christmas eve with the Hastings regional office on behalf of a constituent who was concerned about his assessment. The office staff devoted considerable time to the case. They were helpful and efficient, and they wanted to ensure that they were correct in dealing with the case. I believe that that was very much in their favour.

Dr. Spink: I have had exactly the same experience with the Hastings office and the staff were very helpful.

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend confirms the hard work which is put in by the CSA. With colleagues on the Social Security Select Committee, I interviewed Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive of the CSA. I was left with the impression that she was knowledgeable and sincere, and that she was an effective and capable manager who was concerned with doing a good job. She and her colleagues should be congratulated on the good job that they are doing on behalf of the nation's children and on behalf of the many women who are benefiting by receiving maintenance in proper amounts for the first time.
There was all-party support on the Committee for the principle of the Act, and also for the vast bulk of the operations of the CSA. There was support for the way in which the Government had implemented the Act. It has been a difficult Act to bring into being because it requires people to pay, including many people who have not being paying enough and many who have beeen been evading payments. Consequently, the Act was never likely to be popular with everybody.
It is the duty of hon. Members to be prepared to stand up and explain to people why they have to pay more. We have had to do that to many taxpayers and to absent fathers. We cannot single absent fathers out and give them special protection from paying more, and then say to our taxpayers that they have to pay more in VAT or more in taxation generally. The Committee's investigations showed that the Act was operating in a fair and balanced manner, but the problem unquestionably was that it was tough on some fathers who had not planned their budgets. Those fathers had married for the second time and had not properly worked out their finances.
Clearly, that is not something for which either Parliament or the Government can take the blame. If an absent father does not budget properly for his second household, that father somehow has to re-budget, as everybody else does. All our pensioners will suffer if they have to receive less in their pensions to support absent fathers.
The Government have adopted many of the Committee's recommendations, and they have shown that they are capable of being flexible in relation to the Act. They have also shown courage in realising that there is a point where one must stand up and be counted. The Opposition will not do that. They have gone weak at the knees at the thought of having to stand up for something. That shows that they will be unfit to govern this country, if they are ever in a position to do so.
Clean breaks do not adequately take into account the distribution of capital. Clean breaks do not look at deferred pensions, which some absent fathers have, and wives often come off second best in them. Such settlements are about capital and its distribution, but I do not believe—nor did the Committee—that capital in a marriage can be worked out to the extent that is necessary to get a fair settlement. Consequently, there would be enormously complicated calculations if the Government adopted any arrangements to take into account clean breaks on capital. The CSA would not be qualified to work out those calculations. Even the Inland Revenue finds it difficult to assess capital and valuation, and the CSA is not in a position to take on that job.
The appeals procedure for which the Opposition ask would be unique because it would be based, so they say, on fairness. I am aware of no other appeals procedure in government or in administration which is based on fairness. The Inland Revenue appeals procedure is based on the law, not on fairness. The social security appeals procedure is based on law, not on fairness. We have to accept that the law sometimes operates unfairly and, until Parliament has the opportunity of reviewing and changing the law, all appeals procedures must be based on law. It is not possible to have an appeals procedure in any other way.
Hon. Members have a chance in the Lobby tonight to show whether they support fair payments—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order.

Mrs. Jane Kennedy: The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) made a characteristically robust speech, but he was somewhat unfair about the motion and the opening speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). Given the hon. Gentleman's small majority in Dover, it might also be regarded as a somewhat reckless speech.
As a member of the Select Committee, I welcomed the Government's decision to accept the recommendations which allowed absent parents to keep more of their income. I believe that that addresses the real problems which absent parents have been experiencing.
The Government could have gone further in their response to other issues—particularly asking absent parents to pay retrospectively from the moment that the assessment form is sent to them. The Government should carefully consider the recommendations by the Committee that the payment should be made from the time the assessment is made after the form is sent back to the CSA.
The CSA has been criticised by hon. Members today, and the Committee did so previously, for the way in which it has been working. It has been suggested that the CSA is swamped with work. Hopefully, further changes might be made to the formula which will affect the targets the CSA has been set and the way in which it manages its work. We need information about how the CSA has been affected, and what assistance will be given to the staff to meet the changes.
I turn to one area which has not been mentioned in the debate. In the letters which I have received from constituents, and from people from all over the country—as a Committee member, I have been sent letters from different groups—what has come across to me is the bitterness, hurt and anger which people are feeling about the work of the CSA.
I have been somewhat surprised to hear hon. Members say today that they have been surprised at that reaction. Surely, if the Government set out with the task of requiring parents to take financial responsibility for their children, there is bound to be such a reaction. We should have known that that was going to happen and been prepared for it. Perhaps we should have taken more seriously the idea of phasing in. We should have thought about it.
What has happened demonstrates to me a certain myopia in the way that we have dealt with families and family issues in social policy. We have sought to make

divorce easier and more civilised by making it easier to arrive at. We have enabled couples to divorce in a way that allows them to maintain a relationship with their children and, necessarily, with their former partner. We have not sufficiently taken into account the effects of all that on children.
Anyone who saw the "Panorama" programme on Monday night could not fail to be impressed by the anguish that had been caused to children. Parents believed that they were doing the right thing and helping their children by separating and ending an unhappy marriage. But they caused anguish to their children which the children did not express because they were unable to do so, given their relationship with their parents.
Perhaps the Government should take some of the taxpayers' money that we have been talking about—the rights of the taxpayer are recognised by Opposition Members, too—and use it to help families to stay together. If they used it to fund research into the effects on children of the child support policy, other policies, long-term unemployment, divorce, separation and becoming mem—bers of new families, we could start to see a real return from the work of the Child Support Agency.
We would not simply be in defensive mode, trying to justify the work of the agency. The agency is hurting people. There is real hurt out there. Genuine hurt is being expressed to all of us, if we are honest about what people are saying to us. If we used some of the money in the way that I have suggested, we could make something positive come out of the experiences of the past few months.

Mr. David Lidington: I agreed with the tone and substance of the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy). The problem that we are grappling with today is how we frame arrangements for divorce. We are rightly asking parents to take responsibility for their children. Often, those parents have entered into financial arrangements or commitments to a second family on the basis of ground rules that Parliament has now altered dramatically.
My concern is not so much for families who divorce now, after the Child Support Agency has come into operation. My concern is the extent to which we can and should mitigate the dramatic effects that the legislation is having on families who, under previous arrangements, made commitments in good faith for themselves, their second partner and their second family.
I found it difficult to take seriously some of the comments made by some Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon), who is no longer in her place, wanted to see the whole system swept away. She condemned any idea that there was merit in using revenue from the Child Support Agency to offset benefit payments provided by taxpayers.
The point about tax was well made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, when he pointed out that maintenance provides the parent with care with a portable income. It enables the parent with care to take employment, without the risk of benefit automatically being withdrawn, leaving her no better off than before. Certainly, women have come to my surgery since the general election to complain to me that, under the previous


arrangements, it was impossible for them to take a job, because they would have been no better off in employment than remaining on income support.
Nor should we dismiss the idea that it is important to put money back into the Treasury. I believe that about £4·9 billion is spent by the taxpayer on income-related benefits for single-parent families. That is roughly equivalent to half the total annual spending of the Department for Education. It is not a small sum.
To be fair to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), to his credit he has never shied away from the fact that any arrangements that we may make to mitigate the impact of the Child Support Act 1991 on the absent parent will mean either that less money goes to the parent with care or less accrues to the Treasury, with consequences for Government spending or taxation in the broader sense.
Some Opposition Back-Bench Members have neglected the extent to which the old system was inadequate. It was arbitrary. Decisions were inconsistent. Far too many parents with care of children were left without any support.
My right hon. Friend gave the statistics. He said that 90 per cent. of CSA cases involved children whose parents were so poor that they were on benefit. In two thirds of cases in the first year, no maintenance whatever had been paid. Three quarters of lone parents receive no regular maintenance whatever. That is evidence that reform was urgently needed.
I am afraid that I am unpersuaded by the notion that a review process is the way in which to address the matter. If an independent review body is to meet the expectations of the people who complain about the impact of the CSA, it will have to go further than the four or five constituency cases to which my hon. Friend for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) referred in an intervention. Then we will be into a discussion of what should be the criteria for a review. Either we would risk returning to a system of pure discretion, with arbitrary and inconsistent decisions, or we would have to list the criteria very clearly.
The hon. Member for Garscadden gave us some illustrations of the type of rules that might apply in such a review procedure. I am afraid that they sounded as if they were couched in general terms that would give rise to demand for an additional tier of appeal beyond appeal at first instance, or to attempts to seek judicial review of a decision on the grounds that the independent reviewer had failed to interpret the rules properly in the specific case before him.
An area in which we could take further action, following the welcome changes announced by my hon. Friend the Minister last week, is in some of the details of the formula. The arguments about stepchildren have been well aired in the Chamber. I simply refer my hon. Friend the Minister to the case of one couple in my constituency who are both now in their second marriage.
The man is being asked by the CSA to make a much higher maintenance payment for the children of his first marriage, who live with his ex-wife. His stepchildren—the children of his second wife—receive virtually nothing from his second wife's ex-husband, because he is unemployed and receiving benefit. When there is that discrepancy in payments, it makes for neither trust and support for the arrangements that Parliament has put in place nor for healthy family relationships for any of the couples or parents.
Travel-to-work costs have been mentioned by several of my hon. Friends. Certainly the cost of travelling from Aylesbury to London is not small. I would not expect the Government to enter an open-ended commitment to pay any amount of travel-to-work costs of an absent parent for all time, but I wonder whether they should consider a time-limited or cash-limited arrangement to enable people to make the transition.
Even with the 18-month transitional period announced last week, there is no doubt that the new arrangements put in place by the CSA can make life extremely difficult for absent parents who have entered into financial and family commitments on the basis of previous rules.
On the operation of the Child Support Agency, when I have phoned the parliamentary desk at the Dudley regional office my queries have been answered courteously and efficiently. However, I am concerned for those of my constituents who have not had such a fortunate experience. I have been told of forms lost, letters going without response and telephones left apparently permanently engaged.
However, the hon. Member for Broadgreen alluded to the worst problem—the great gap in time which so often elapses between a request for a new assessment being made to the CSA and that assessment being served on the absent parent. As a result, the parent is faced all at once with arrears, which may run into many hundreds of pounds, with no opportunity to make provision for the payment.
My right hon. and hon. Friends should therefore consult the chief executive of the Child Support Agency to find out how those administrative and managerial problems can be overcome. That task, as well as possible further changes to the formula, needs to be tackled, if the agency and the principles that underlie the Child Support Act 1991 are to win the public support that they deserve.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Although it is tempting, because of the time factor I will not respond to some of the remarks made by Conservative Members. Suffice it to say that I find that the arrogance of some of their remarks—especially those of the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw)—does little to enhance the democratic processes. We are trying to resolve a difficult problem which, as constituency Members of Parliament, we all face.
It is also easy to think that we are debating the abolition of the Child Support Agency, when we are trying to resolve the problems that have confronted certain people and to consider how they affect children. Sometimes, one would think from hon. Members' comments—especially those of Conservative Members—that children are inanimate objects, who can be moved around like pieces of furniture. We are talking about children—the children of first marriages, second marriages and stepchildren. We are also talking about the hurt and concern that has been caused not only to children but to all the other family members.
There has been an element of hypocrisy in the debate. Conservative Members say that they care about children, when in reality they are talking about saving money. They talk about the rights and responsibilities of taxpayers, but as a taxpayer who does not have children I am happy to pay my taxes for their benefit. I think that they are a greater


priority than spending money on Trident. Those are the sort of political priorities that we are here to decide, and hon. Members would be well advised to heed them.
My colleagues and I on the nationalist Benches will support the Opposition motion. The Minister and the Secretary of State should realise that we are being asked to absorb a series of complex changes in the working of the agency. Announcements were made before Christmas, and the officers with whom I have had to deal were not sure how and when they were supposed to implement the changes.
Another series of changes was announced last week and today, and the Secretary of State said in his opening speech that thousands of reassessment letters would be sent out during the next two or three weeks. That will place the agencies and their representatives under a huge amount of stress and it also places continuing stress on the parents involved. Whenever a new letter arrives, they do not know whether it is good, bad or indifferent news, or whether they will face yet another problematic form, which they have to fill in to resolve the situation. There should be a clear time scale for implementation of the changes. Our constituents should be given that reassurance.
I have had to deal with a substantial number of cases in my area. Other hon. Members have referred to the fact that they represent constituencies where armed forces personnel live. There are two Royal Air Forces bases in Moray—RAF Lossie and RAF Kinloss—which are well recognised and respected. The bulk of the cases that I have had to deal with have involved people from the bases. They seem to be readily identifiable, and have already been paying maintenance for their children from a first marriage or previous relationship, yet they seem to be the first people to be landed with a reassessment. They are also not allowed to get into debt.
At my surgery on Friday, I learned of a flight lieutenant who has taken early retirement from the Air Force because of debts that he could not meet, caused by his reassessment. As a result, he will lose some of his pension rights. There is a strong argument for reviewing how we deal with the people we expect to go into any conflict on our behalf, if that is how we treat them.
The formula lacks flexibility. The Secretary of State seems to be arguing for a rigid formula, but when one is dealing with families and children, we cannot have that rigidity of rule. We need flexibility.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) would agree, given his legal training, that we need the sort of attitude that has been tried and tested in the sheriff courts of Scotland for centuries, where decisions on aliment and maintenance were based on very sensible grounds. The men in those courts listened and understood the reality of life. They knew all about hard knocks, and ensured that all aspects of people's lives were taken into account before decisions were reached.
I must emphasise that the retrospective aspect of the legislation is intolerable, as other hon. Members have said. Also, in a rural constituency such as I represent, travel-to-work payments are important, and I ask for discretion on that matter.
The Secretary of State did not understand my argument earlier. Perhaps I did not express it effectively. From my work with one of the legal companies in my constituency,

I know of a girl who is seeking to raise a paternity suit in the Scottish courts. She has been denied access to legal aid because, until she proclaims the name of the child's father to the Child Support Agency, the legal aid forms cannot be signed.
That role is not suitable for the CSA. Surely it should be restricted to the legal profession. I shall send the papers to the Secretary of State and the Minister, as the matter concerns me greatly. I may have come across only one such case, but I am sure that other hon. Members will have encountered similar ones.
It is very difficult for these young women to decide to raise paternity suits. Such a course is not undertaken lightly; it requires courage, especially in small communities where people tend to know a great deal about each other's business.
I should like to refer now to a matter about which I wrote to the Secretary of State this week. A couple from my constituency who separated last year decided to reconcile. In such a situation, will money be reclaimed from the wife if she received income support during her husband's absence? Will there be any exchange, or will the separation be deemed never to have occurred? A couple trying to get together again should not have to face such a debt. This is an unusual aspect of the situation, but it is an important one as people do try to work out their differences.
The Secretary of State has said that the chief executive of the Child Support Agency did not receive performance-related pay. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman of evidence that was taken on 2 November 1993. On that occasion, Mrs. Hepplewhite made it quite clear that performance-related pay was involved. It was stated that clear targets had been set, and that if they were not reached, there would be an alteration in pay structure.
I have it in black and white. This is one aspect of the whole affair that our constituents find difficult to accept. They feel that they are being penalised in order to pay someone else. What we are asking for, in the name of all humanity, is not performance-related pay for executives but flexibility and a humanitarian attitude towards our constituents and their families.

9 pm

Sir David Madel: I welcome in particular the last part of the amendment, which indicates that the Government will
keep the arrangements under continuing close review as further experience is gained.
Like many other hon. Members, I am sure, I shall gain further experience of the Child Support Agency at the constituency surgery tomorrow night. When one is confronted with such cases one never knows what problem is going to arise.
During the debate on 2 February, my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), referring to constituents rather than to himself—as I am doing—said:
Constituents who come to see me complain that the agency simply will not answer their questions, either by telephone or by letter; all it does is send those draconian assessments. Even when a response by the agency is received, it is belated and does not solve the problems that have been put to it."—[Official Report, 2 February 1994; Vol 236, c. 968.]
The Child Support Agency ought to make much better use of the telephone when contacting fathers about their assessments. If it wonders what sort of standard it should aim at, let me suggest one. My constituents and I received


nothing but help from the disability living allowance telephone unit in Blackpool when we encountered difficulties with the introduction of that allowance. If the CSA aims at such a standard, progress will be made.
However, it must phone at sensible times. It is obvious that people who go out to work should be called when they have returned home. That will mean evening calls. My experience is that when, occasionally, people manage to get through to the CSA by telephone, problems can be solved, but the agency must demonstrate flexibility and sensitivity.
I agree with those hon. Members who have said that they do not like the term "absent parent". It is a misleading and upsetting term. On 2 February 1994 my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State—my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt)—said:
There can be no clean break between a parent and his children."—[Official Report, 2 February 1994; Vol. 236, c. 943.]
It would be much better to refer to the parent without custody.
As I have said, the amendment refers to the Government's intention to undertake a close review as further experience is gained. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will remember that many fathers not only are in touch with their children but contribute over and above maintenance payments. Sometimes they take the children on holiday or buy them clothes and presents. In other words, there is no clean break. These people are making an additional contribution towards the well-being of their children.
Many hon. Members have mentioned the question of travel-to-work costs. As a Member from the south-east, I want to emphasise this problem. Some system of relief ought to be built in. Of course, such relief would be time-limited, as children get older and maintenance changes accordingly. If, as I suspect, the Child Support Agency is anxious about how this might be worked out, let me suggest that there is a case for looking at the tax system to see whether it can be used to provide some relief in respect of travel-to-work costs. Some people have a company car or receive a mileage allowance for using their own car or have their British Rail season ticket paid for by the firm. Anyone who does not receive such help could be granted a temporary adjustment in his income tax code.
It cannot be beyond the wit of the Government to use the tax system to provide a temporary help to people who want to stay in work but find, as a result of their assessment, that their travel-to-work costs swallow even more of their taxed income so that they face difficulty in staying in work. Throughout the debate, the Government have endlessly emphasised that they want as many people as possible to stay in work or get back to work. Will they use the tax system to help people pay their travel-to-work costs?
People are understandably worried about what will happen if their income suddenly drops. Will their assessment be changed quickly or will they be pursued immediately on the basis of their previous income? The Child Support Agency sometimes makes the mistake of not differentiating between salary and earnings. Earnings fluctuate and some bonuses are paid not monthly but annually, if one is lucky. I had a dreadful job trying to get it across to the Child Support Agency that a constituent received an annual bonus if he was lucky and that a

monthly bonus was not built into his earnings. The agency must take the greatest care to differentiate between straight wages and earnings.
Another problem experienced by constituents arises when the father can genuinely no longer pay because he has lost his job or been sacked. In that case, will the mother be able to return to benefit quickly and without difficulty? That problem needs attention.
I welcome the Government's assurance that details of the second wife's income will not be passed to the first wife where it is irrelevant to an assessment. I hope that there will be more publicity on that, because it is one of the greatest causes of complaint. We should stress and explain to people that, if the second wife has a very low income or no income whatever, taking it into account for an assessment means that her husband will pay less. People do not mind giving intimate details of their financial affairs if it means that they pay less.
In the previous debate on this subject, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) spoke of the welcome changes which the Government are introducing. He said:
However, I thought it essential to introduce the changes as soon as feasible, even if that may cause some difficulties and delays to the normal day-to-day business of the agency."—[Official Report, 2 February 1994; Vol. 236, c. 947.]
That sounds a little ominous. It is a political decision to introduce more phasing in and alter assessments. Those changes are welcome and I support them, but I am worried about
delays to the normal day-to-day business of the agency
because that might mean further delays for people who are in the middle of dealing with the agency.
I appeal to the Government to make the Child Support Agency more sensitive, courteous and customer friendly. They have made political decisions in the right direction and assured us that further changes will be made in the light of experience. I appreciate the fact that they do not do the day-to-day administration. It is done by the Child Support Agency. I hope that the agency will strive for better standards, because those are vital.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: While many of my constituents would put out the flag if they heard that the Child Support Agency was to be consigned to the scrap heap, I hope that we can, by less drastic means, adapt the working of the agency to the mutual benefit of absent parents and parents with care. I hope that we can reassure parents that the agency can do its job without striking fear into the hearts of people who are paying three and sometimes four times what they were paying under a court agreement. We should also send the message that we are listening to their concerns and are prepared to take action.
Reassurance can only come from a change to the fundamental workings of the agency itself. We all agree that an absent parent must fulfil a financial obligation to his children. The CSA can never function fairly unless that is its only objective. The powers of the CSA go far beyond that basic principle. In many cases, the formula has given rise to such huge increases in maintenance agreements that it is hard to believe that the assessment was based on the needs of the child. Indeed, we have all heard of the classic case of the absent parent who can no longer afford to visit his children because of increased maintenance payments.
Under the present system, many absent parents are being asked to increase maintenance payments substantially, with next to no consideration being given to their financial obligations towards any children that they have by a subsequent marriage. When a maintenance settlement previously agreed in court between parents is trebled, or sometimes quadrupled, can it really be said that it is for the sake of child maintenance? If a perfectly reasonable court settlement is destroyed by increasing the maintenance payments, in many cases far beyond the amount that the individual can afford to pay, such action will act against the interests of the child.
Even after the recent changes, the scheme will disproportionately benefit the wealthiest parents. The poorest absent parents will pay an additional 85p in maintenance for every extra £1 of income. Those whose disposable incomes allow them to meet the basic requirement will pay an extra 50p, while the wealthiest absent parents will pay only a further 25p maximum, and less if they have fewer children. If the child support scheme is to succeed, it must be fair to all parents. How else can it be said that it protects the interests of the child?
I believe that the formula for maintenance assessment is designed specifically so that the maximum amoung of money is extracted from the absent parent. That is the root of the problem. If the formula is to remain unchanged, at the very least the public should be given the right of appeal to the agency for a review of the assessment, although I am sure that we would all have preferred to see a fairer system in the first place. All too often, there is no justification for the agency's involvement. I refer, for example, to a couple who made an informal mutually acceptable and long-standing financial agreement based on the needs of the child. Why interfere in such cases? What can the agency achieve by its involvement that has not been achieved already by the parents?
One case came to my attention of a woman who has had an informal agreement with her ex-husband for many years and received money from him every month on the same day without fail. The CSA came along—not at her request—and upped his maintenance payment. She readily admits that she did not need the increase. The result of that interference was that the ex-husband now pays the money direct to the CSA, which is supposed to pass it on to her within a few days. She has not once yet received her money on the appointed day. When she telephones the CSA to complain about that, it can never tell her when she will receive the money. The reason that the agency give is that the cheque may be in one, two or three different places.
Who benefits from that? The absent parent who pays more does not; nor does the parent with care who does not receive the maintenance on time, although the CSA has received it on time. Quite clearly, the interests of the child are not the motivating factor in the CSA's involvement in such a case. Why does it need to be involved in a mutually successful arrangement? I hope that the Secretary of State can explain who benefits from that and perhaps clarify whether it is to prevent child poverty or simply to raise money for the Treasury as a form of indirect tax.
I would dearly like to see the CSA doing what we were told that it would do—chase absent parents who pay no maintenance or pay it at inadequate levels. Like my colleagues, I have cases in my constituency where people

are vowing to leave work rather than work to pay such huge increases and be left with just a pittance. Recently, a gentleman wrote to me:
I have no objection to paying sensible, affordable maintenance but the CSA has left me financially worse off working than being on benefits … I would prefer to work but I am not stupid and if the CSA make it easier to be unemployed, that then is my obvious option.
The issue of clean break settlements has been widely discussed, and rightly so: it is a bone of contention that will not go away. For years, the courts have encouraged property transfer as part of a comprehensive divorce settlement; any parent who walked away from the marital home with nothing more than a suitcase and the clothes he or she was wearing has a right to feel aggrieved when told that that now means nothing at all—which is fundamentally wrong.
A gentleman who came to see me recently had been party to a once-and-for-all break. He told me that he had left the marital home with a cut-glass vase that his mother had given him for his birthday, and nothing else. He was paying £100 a month in maintenance for his children. The CSA became involved. Now he has to pay £400 a month. He feels aggrieved, and no wonder.
Many absent parents simply cannot afford to pay what is asked of them. I examined the weekly budget of one family in which a parent had remarried, had one stepchild and was responsible for the maintenance of a child from a previous relationship. That parent could pay his maintenance only by ceasing to travel to see his son, and by paying for no more school trips, clothes, holidays, pocket money and telephone calls: those were the only voluntary elements of his budget. That gentleman lives in my constituency, in Durham; his child lives on the Isle of Wight. That is why I mentioned the travelling.
I believe that the Government misled us by suggesting that the agency's purpose was to pursue maintenance dodgers. It exists simply to reduce social security costs. It is not too late to reassess the workings of the agency, and to refine them—in short, to enable it to carry out what I was led to believe was its purpose: securing maintenance payments for children who would otherwise receive nothing, or next to nothing.

Mr. David Martin: There is plainly an enormous amount of common ground on the assertion that the problems we have encountered with the CSA stem not from the principles of the Child Support Act—which are fundamentally sound, and generally approved of—but from the consequential regulations and administrative provisions that the House empowered Ministers to put into practical effect.
We—by which I mean hon. Members on both sides of the House, including busy Ministers: they have constituents too—trusted, perhaps too readily, that a measure containing so much justice in principle would be justly administered from the outset, and would be seen to be so. The Child Support Agency was introduced into an extremely sensitive and emotionally charged area. I remember the matrimonial cases with which I dealt during my practice at the Bar in the early 1970s; nothing much has changed since then. The bitterness, anger and resentments that are inseparable from divorce proceedings—particu-


larly where children are concerned—are all too frequently of a harrowing magnitude that no one could fully understand without experiencing or witnessing them.
The CSA set out to unpick many of the arrangements that had been so carefully constructed, and so often finally settled after months—even years—of recrimination and sorrow. That required very sensitive handling. Unfortunately, the whole thing got off to a poor start owing to bad publicity based on, for instance, a leaked report of priorities, and the reporting of examples that, by comparison, almost rehabilitated Shylock.
Initially, I had a sense that my serious concerns on behalf of some constituents with genuine grievances were not being dealt with sympathetically enough. Since then, Ministers and the CSA itself have been working fast to improve matters—to publicise the true facts effectively, and to persuade us, our constituents and the media of those facts. Those moves include the welcome concessions on which we voted last week, which will help matters significantly when they are properly understood. That is a crucial condition.
I do not intend to go into individual constituents' cases. I shall continue to take them up by letter and by personal meetings with my hon. and right hon. Friends the Ministers most directly concerned. My main purpose today is to mark my continuing concern about certain features of the operation of the agency and of the rules and regulations which apply. I reinforce what the Government amendment makes clear: that the present arrangements will be kept under continuing close review. Of course they must be.

Mrs. Llin Golding: I feel as though I have become the Marjorie Proops of the House of Commons as I have brought into the Chamber a pile of letters—more than a foot high—that have been sent to me from all parts of the country about the so-called Child Support Act. Those letters express the anger, bitterness and despair that many men, women and children and their families feel about how the Act is working.
I received one letter this morning; it is the last one on the pile. It says:
As a person who has always supported my children and has done so not because it was the law but because I take pride in my duty as an absent parent, I now find myself unable to comply with the unrealistic demands of the CSA formula and unable not to comply with the CSA demands for fear of criminal prosecution … this crippling increase, implemented in a haste destroyed mine and my partner's life … we are not unwilling to pay we are unable.".
When we examine any legislation, we should consider whether we support the principle and the way it is to be put into practice and agree that the result is what was intended. Each letter supports the principle of parents maintaining their children. Far from wanting to abandon their children, there is an overwhelming feeling of wanting to maintain contact.
The Minister should see some of the letters that I have received from Families Need Fathers to know how desperately fathers battle against women who use children to spite their former partners and deny them access, and how they struggle to maintain contact. Even where there is no conflict, it is mostly men who travel many miles to reassure their children that they still love and care for them. So there is no disagreement about the principle of the Act, but there is a huge tide of feeling about how it is being put into practice.
Many of the letters speak of clean break settlements under the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings act 1984 which had been agreed in courts and not discouraged by the Government at the time. How can the Government now turn that Act on its head and say to absent fathers, "You may have given up your home and its contents and given a lump sum to your wife as well as paying some maintenance to the child. You may have taken out a large mortgage and bought a car on hire purchase, which is essential for your work, with any money you had left. You may have other purchase agreements and responsibilities, but we shall ignore your commitments and previous court settlements with the statement that your first responsibility must be to maintain your child." What do the Government consider such a man had been doing under the court procedure?
The inflexibility of the formula is damaging the lives of far too many people. The Government say that the vast majority of those approached so far have never paid maintenance. That is good, but what about the remainder, the responsible parents who have been paying maintenance, who have taken over family debts and who are now faced with long-term commitments which they can no longer meet? They may have long-term commitments to new families or other children. Do they have no rights?
Are those responsible, caring men and women to be threatened and treated in a way which reduces them to pleading desperately in those letters, "I cannot pay this amount. Please can someone help me?" When did it become right to act arrogantly, without even a spark of decency or understanding, when dealing with families and children?
What of the children? Not very much has been said about the children by Conservative Members, but have the Government no understanding of the strain that divorce and family break-up cause to children? Do they not understand the need of children to know that both parents love and want them? Does the standard formula that produces predictable and realistic amounts—as the Child Support Agency describes its formula—take into account the warmth and reassurance that children need to grow arid the contact that they need with both parents? As many of the letters show, contact between parents and the children does not enter the calculations of the Child Support Agency.
Is that what the Child Support Act 1991 was intended to do? Can we not find a halfway house, another way—something that takes the children's feelings into account? Is there not some other way of assessing maintenance which considers children and their needs—not the need for money, but for care, for contact and for their feeling and the way in which they wish to grow to be taken into account?
I would not wish the decision to be made by courts again, for they, too, failed miserably in dealing with maintenance payments. The principle of the Act is right. The inflexibility of the formula is wrong. Surely an Act with a formula that puts so many decent people into debt and drives them to despair, causing them to write letters in such vast numbers to me, cannot be what was intended.
The Minister must reconsider immediately and amend this flawed and unsatisfactory Act.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Since time immemorial, women have been left holding the baby in poverty and it has taken until 1993 and the present Government to put the matter right. If the teeth of the Act are to be drawn, we shall return to the situation of relatively rich father and relatively poor mother, and we do not wish to do that.
There has been a black hole in much of the debate—one that was referred to by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) in his opening remarks, in which he said, blatantly, that the majority of people in the House were in favour of major changes. That is simply because the hon. Members who have been able to speak—or perhaps have come to speak—have largely spoken for an articulate minority of men who have sat down and written to us or come to our constituency surgeries. However, I shall speak for the great number of women—the silent women—who benefit from the reforms and are grateful for them.
I shall also speak for another silent minority in the country, those who pay for the reforms. I have received a letter from a pensioner who says:
As a … pensioner, no State benefits, I was delighted to hear
that the Government have at last decided to ensure that people who have children do not expect them to be supported by
single people, pensioners and childless couples".
She says that she has saved and paid for her pension all her life and that she
should not be expected to help men shirk their responsibilities.
That is another silent group of people that we need to take into account before we start speaking about changing the Act.
It is interesting that in the debate all that we have heard about is men not wanting to part with more money for the children of their first marriage. That has been the basic theme. We have heard about the little treats that they give children—the extra pair of trainers, the sweeties, the trip to the zoo, the holiday. Why should they not pay? They should pay a proper amount so that their children do not have to wait for daddy to turn up and give them a few crumbs from his income. That is not how we should expect people to behave.
Reference has been made to the way in which the Child Support Agency operates. I am glad that some of my colleagues complimented the agency because every case that I have brought to its attention has been handled courteously, promptly and kindly. I have nothing but good to say about the job that Ms Hepplewhite is trying to do under new legislation which is extremely contentious.
I am sure that all hon. Members will admit that most complaints have come from men. It is almost axiomatic that it is articulate, middle-class men—or sometimes their second wives—who are writing to us because it is the better-off fathers who are expected to pay more. By definition, poorer fathers are not expected to pay, if they are expected to pay anything at all. Their second family responsibilities are taken into account before the payments for their first families are calculated, and stepchildren are included in the calculation.
There must be no suggestion that the Government reverse the changes that have been introduced. The

changes were greatly needed and were welcomed by all the women to whom I have spoken. I have only one further suggestion to make to the Government.
The women to whom I speak are grateful for the help that the Government are giving, but, in addition to keeping the extra payments, they would like to be able to go out to work and earn a little more. I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to talk to the Treasury team about giving these women a little more support. They do not want to be dependent on state benefits or have to hold out their hand for a little extra from the father of their children. They want to be independent and the Government are helping them to be so.

Miss Joan Lestor: This is the International Year of the Family, an irony that has not escaped me as I have listened to the catalogue of complaints from hon. Members of all parties about how a Government agency acts against the interests of parents and children. One of the aims of the IYF, according to the Government-funded office in London, is to be
a catalyst for building a more family friendly society.
The IYF booklet tells us:
Opinions may vary about what family means, but we all agree now more than ever before, that families matter and their well being and that of each individual member of the family is crucial to the well being of society.
The Children Act 1989 also put centre stage the interests of the child.
I am glad that that the Secretary of State seems to have moved on a little from his appalling speech at the Tory party conference two years ago when he talked about single young ladies trying to jump the housing queue by becoming lone mothers. I hope that some of his remarks tonight mean that he has a little more understanding of the situation.
From what we have heard today and from our constituency post bags, it is abundantly clear that the Child Support Act 1991 and the Child Support Agency are not working in the best interests of children and families—they do not have their interests at heart—and that they are not working in quite the way the Government predicted. Last week we debated the Government's regulations to amend the agency. The changes were welcome, but they were not sufficiently far reaching or comprehensive.
The Secretary of State, and the Prime Minister only today, said that the agency would be kept constantly under review. I think it was the Prime Minister who said that we should need more evidence before we make any more alterations. Presumably, we have to wait for the other 250,000 cases to come forward. We are all aware that the agency will have to be altered before long if its principle is to work without the hardship that its application causes to many people.
The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) rightly said that some mothers—4 per cent.—have benefited from the legislation, and I welcome that fact; it is great. Most of us support the principle of non-resident parents—mostly men—supporting their children financially and emotionally. Precious few have said that it is not a matter of either/or—just because 4 per cent. are benefiting does not mean that the rest should suffer as a result. That is the implication. As we have heard tonight, some will be worse off, as they will be floated off income support, with the subsequent loss of passported benefits.
The hon. Member for Billericay ridiculed the loss of one-off payments. There is nothing wrong or worthy of derision in a father agreeing to pay for a holiday, buy the shoes and contribute—that is what fatherhood is all about and I welcome it. Those are some of the things that the non-residential parents are doing.

Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss Lestor: I shall not give way. With great courtesy, may I say to the hon. Gentleman that both the Government and the Opposition Front-Bench teams agreed to cut the length of their speeches so that more Back Benchers could speak. I have a lot to say and, although I speak quickly, I might not have time to advance all my arguments.
Some people have lost benefit because they have refused to co-operate with the agency. That is terrible. It may involve a small number of people—160, I believe—but if people had an incentive and a disregard, it might assist in bringing irresponsible, absent fathers to book.
We are all aware of the devastating impact of the Act on second families and stepchildren. It puts a strain on new relationships and causes hardship to the children. It is the children about whom I am concerned. All those problems were predicted when we first discussed the then Child Support Agency Bill. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) referred to my speech in that debate, because the Government refused to listen.
The then Minister, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), accused us of political deceit when we tabled our reasoned amendment. He said that we were trying to undermine
in the mind of the public the wholly honourable intentions of the Bill."—[Official Report, 4 June 1991; Vol. 192, c. 240]
A lot of history has been rewritten tonight. I want to make it clear that we supported the principle that men should be responsible for the children that they father. That was why we did not vote on Second Reading of the Bill. We tabled the reasoned amendment to show some of the difficulties that would arise from the Bill.
We argued that clean break settlements should be properly taken into account. My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) now supports the principle that the impact of the Act on second families should be taken into account. Indeed, Ministers were keen during discussions to play up the moral argument, but they did not take account of the fact that many people were already contributing. I remember one hon. Member referring to "tower block stags", who tend to jump from one flat to another with no responsibility for the children they father. That got a "Hear, hear" from Ministers. The message was clear and many people were misled.
The Child Support Agency was supposed to be the means by which non-resident, irresponsible fathers who did not contribute a penny to the families they had abandoned were to be brought to account. I am afraid that it has not worked out like that. CSA staff have been advised to go after the soft targets first—parents on higher than average incomes, parents with second families, parents who rent rather than have a mortgage and those who are in regular contact with their first families. Those are not the Jack-the-lads whom we were told were the principal targets of the Act. It is disgraceful that those who refused to name the father of their children have had their benefit taken away or reduced.
There is another difficulty. The agency has made many mistakes. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr.

Ashton) gave me the example of a man who received through his letter box a demand for £75. He was told that he was responsible for a child he had fathered and for whom he had not paid. The demand bore his name, but it was not his child. When he asked for details, he was told that he could have them. What happened? His marriage temporarily broke up and, as the man had had a vasectomy, the efficacy of medical science was also undermined. That is not on. Surely to goodness when an agency or anyone else is chasing an absent father, it should make sure that it has the right man before it makes a move.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Even worse than that has happened in the same neighbourhood. A father committed suicide when he was told how much he had to pay, and the inquest said that it was all because of the Act.

Miss Lestor: Yes; I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
Many such parents are responsible caring parents, who pay regularly and who share the care of their children. The hon. Member for Billericay dismisses such matters, but those fathers take care of their children, take them on holiday and buy them clothes and all sorts of other extras above the maintenance levels agreed in court.
The White Paper "Children Come First" has been totally undermined. Because of the agency's involvement, some first and second families are financially worse off, and some children are seeing less, or even nothing, of their father if he cannot afford visiting costs on top of the increased maintenance. Is that putting the interests of the child first?
Indeed, some fathers have been told that they would be better off if they became unemployed, because the sums demanded from them are unworkable. Who would benefit from that? Not the family, not the father and not the Exchequer. Some fathers slip through the net altogether. I was advised that when fathers are really absent, because they are resident abroad, the agency can take no action.
The giveaway was making the agency chief executive into a bounty hunter. When the Secretary of State opened the debate—

Hon. Members: Rubbish.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order

Miss Lestor: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: You are wasting time, dear.

Miss Lestor: Don't call me dear.

Mr. John Evans: Come over here and say that.

Miss Lestor: He dare not. He has not got the guts.
The giveaway was making the agency chief executive into a bounty hunter through the introduction of performance-related bonuses. The Secretary of State said that that was not so, and that the arrangement was no different from what happened everywhere else. However, he said that there were no plans to make the document available in the Library; so if what he says is true, will he publish the details of the enforcement and special tracing section? My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) has already asked for that, and his request was refused.
When the Bill was passed, it was said that it would operate on a straightforward principle, aiming to improve


on the existing court system that had failed so many mothers and their children, leaving more than 80 per cent. of lone parents on income support. We were told that that was the principle—but family policies are never that straightforward, and Acts of Parliament, especially those such as the Child Support Act, which have such a strong and direct impact on the lives of ordinary families, cannot be viewed in isolation.
The backdrop should be a coherent family policy which embraces employment opportunities, a national child care strategy and a mediation and conciliation service to help families cope with the stresses of separation and divorce. The CSA is operating in a vacuum. Although this is the international year of the family, there is no Minister for the family to develop a co-ordinated approach to support for families; instead, the Government are concentrating on penny-pinching short-term measures that increase costs in the longer term, both financially and socially.
At the beginning, when the agency was first set up, the Government argued strongly that the taxpayer should not be left to pay for other people's children. I do not regard money spent on children as wasted, unlike the tens of millions of pounds that were lost pushing ahead with the iniquitous poll tax and then scrapping it, or the administrative bungling recently unearthed by the Public Accounts Committee, the £48 million Whitehall project. There have been all sorts of losses. I say to hon. Gentleman, and to the Minister in particular—[interruption.]—and hon. Ladies—that most people in this country would prefer—[Interruption.] Don't be so stupid.
Given the choice, I know how I should prefer my taxes to be spent, and I think most people in the country would want to put children first. Cherishing children is an important principle, yet today their interests are being sacrificed to feed the Exchequer.
Most of the hon. Gentlemen who spoke—not the hon. Ladies—said that they were dissatisfied with the working of the agency. They pointed out the hardship that it was causing and they were absolutely right to do so, as were all my hon. Friends who spoke. If that is true and if that is what those hon. Gentlemen believe, I ask them to join us in the Lobby tonight. There have been hardly any supporters of the Child Support Act 1991 here tonight.

Mrs. Gorman: The supporters are outside.

Miss Lestor: The hon. Lady said that they are not here, but outside. Few have got up and stood for the Act—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman ought to get up and say what he has got to say and not snipe.

Mr. Burt: rose—

Miss Lestor: I am not talking to the Minister. I am talking to the one with the silly grin on his face.
If Conservative Members who have spoken are concerned—I share their concern and we know that what they say makes sense—about the operation of the Act, if they join us in the Lobby tonight, we can begin to alter the Act and establish a principle that, yes, not only makes people responsible for their children but does not impoverish second families and put the interests of children at risk. Those are the principles and that is why we

have moved the motion. I hope that the hon. Gentlemen who have complained about the operations of the agency will join us in the Lobby tonight.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): This has been a lively debate with a variety of speeches. They have been mostly measured speeches on both sides of the House, and there have been one or two that we would have wanted to listen to again. As I said in the past week—the debate is second on child support recently—I am not 100 per cent. certain that all the speeches made in the House showed an acceptance of the basic principles of the Child Support Act 1991. I should like to develop that theme and suggest to the House why our amendment is the best way to move forward in the circumstances.
The Child Support Act 1991 did a number of things. It certainly reiterated a principle which we all find easy to sign up to—that parents should be responsible for their children. No one seriously disagrees with that. However, I must remind the House that the Act did other things as well which we now find not so comfortable with which to identify.
First, the move from a discretionary system to a formula system was deliberate. My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) said clearly, and with some degree of honesty, that hon. Members had not appreciated the full impact of the move from the discretionary system to the formula, and he was right.
Secondly, the Act gave a retrospective ability to the agency to consider settlements. I wanted to make the point to the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) that it is by Act of Parliament that the agency does what it does and it is not for us to say that it is a bureaucratic organisation that acts on its own. The House must recognise its responsibility for creating the Child Support Agency which works to the formula that we set.
I am grateful for the variety of comments made about the CSA by my hon. Friends the Members for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson), for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks), for Newark (Mr. Alexander), for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) and for Bedforshire, South-West (Sir D. Madel).
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) spoke about those who worked in his local CSA. As with all public servants, we probably all have constituents who are Child Support Agency officers. As with all other civil servants, they work according to what we wish them to do and try to do their job. I found some of the criticisms of the Child Support Agency made by Opposition Members quite uncalled for. Those who work for the agency are civil servants doing a job. I wish that all colleagues would take the opportunity to see their local field officers and to talk to them about their work.
I shall now respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy), who made an excellent, measured contribution to our debate. She especially asked what assistance we were giving the agency with the changes. We are giving assistance to the agency. We recognise that the changes will make a difference to targets and that they will make a difference to administration costs.
I hope that I have reassured the hon. Lady. She was the first Member this evening to raise the point about the sheer


misery of divorce and separation, and about our growing awareness of its impact. No hon. Member of any party can safely ignore that point. The hon. Lady was right to raise the matter in the way that she did.
I spoke earlier about the House's responsibility for the Child Support Act 1991. The move from a discretionary approach to a formula and the reasons for acting retrospectively were justified. Colleagues must understand the position from which we moved. Few hon. Members have pointed out how bad the previous system was. It was because so many women did not receive maintenance through the courts that we realised that we could not go on as we were. It was because we recognised the effect on the taxpayer that we had to look at all aspects of the previous position.
I shall quote, justifiably, from the report by the Select Committee on Social Security. I want to quote this paragraph because Opposition Members repeatedly made the point about the taxpayer. I want them to see what a Select Committee—not the Government—said about that point, and I want to remind them of what they clearly intended to do a couple of years ago.
At paragraph 20, the Committee says:
The Committee has received complaints that causing absent fathers to pay money which was formerly paid by the social security system is a distortion of the original purpose of the Act. There have also been criticisms that the money being sought from absent parents does not provide any extra benefits for the children. Given what was said in the White Paper, these criticisms are misconceived. One of the purposes of the changes was to provide a secure income that would enable parents with care to take paid employment without losing another part of their income, as would be the case with Income Support. However, it was always intended that, in cases where it was assessed that the absent parent could afford to do so, the financial responsibility for the care of children should move from the social security system to the absent parent. In some cases maintenance will be a substitute for Income Support; in others, the sums received by the children will certainly improve their circumstances.
That is what we passed; that is what the Select Committee recently said we were right to pass. That is the principle that we should all live up to, it may be uncomfortable for hon. Members.
As we did last week, we have today confronted a number of genuine issues. The hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) was right when she talked about how she wished to spend her taxes. How do we strike the right balance for our children, especially in relation to separation? How do we get the balance right between the interests of both parents and the interests of the taxpayer? Three years ago, the House was clear—let us make no bones about it—about what was the best thing to do. We felt that the first family had been disadvantaged for too long. We knew that we had to redress the balance for such families, and we knew that we had to redress the balance for the taxpayer as well.
The mood of the House has now changed; we are not quite so clear about the issue. That is the honest truth. Having seen the Act in operation, we are not quite so clear about the balance. It is because the House is less clear than it was that I invite the House to support the Government amendment. I believe that it more accurately reflects the mood of the House than does the Opposition motion, which tries to come up with a solution before the issues have been thought through.
We made our position clear with regard to the legislation. As the Select Committee said, it is the most major social change in 40 years. We made a commitmenmt

that we would review the Child Support Agency once it was established. When a piece of considered work came to us reflecting the concerns of the House, our constituents and many commentators, we listened and responded. That pledge is not the empty words suggested by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). When we said that we would keep something under review, we meant that if something came up, we would respond—and we did so. That is what the House approved last week in the proper terms that we proposed.
It is right to allow the changes that we made, prompted by the Select Committee, to have effect so that we can judge the impact. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the impact on the changes will be significant. It is right to assess the impact. From the variety of issues raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House, I do not believe that simply accepting the hon. Gentleman's solution is the right answer. He suggested that there was one easy panacea.
I refer to the debate that I had with the hon. Gentleman this morning—I have had the same debate with him on one or two previous occasions—about what an appeal means. I still cannot get it out of my head that what he means by an appeal, which sounds attractive, is that in some way all those people who are concerned and upset about the changes will have a way out.
I did not think that that was a genuine and honest proposal to put to the people. We must define the gateways to the appeal system because, if everyone appeals, we would go back to the discretionary system to which the hon. Gentleman in his next breath said the House did not want to return.
As I cannot be sure that the hon. Gentleman is clear about what he wants the appeal system to do, and how he wants it to be drawn up, I cannot recommend it to my colleagues tonight. I simply say that, because of the degree of concern and uncertainty raised by my colleagues, we meant what we said in terms of keeping the Act under review. In the past, we have proved that we are able to respond, and that is what I offer my colleagues tonight.
Once again, a voice not heard so much in this debate was that of lone parents—that silent group mentioned by the Select Committee and one or two hon. Members in this debate, and championed so strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). They made the point that the House must not forget why we made the changes in the first place. If we move too precipitately to change—the House should have some experience of this now—and if we lose the gains that we have made, that would be wrong.
I shall quote from a letter that I received yesterday morning from a lady in Northampton:
I am just writing to say as a single parent through no fault of my own, I am very grateful for the CSA's help.
After two and a half years of no maintenance, it is now being sorted and feel I can now get on with my own life.
As a nurse I can now seek employment, as the maintenance will help with costs for a childminder giving my son and myself to have a better future to look to.
You have my full support and I just hope that any changes wail not affect us too much.
That is the honest and straightforward voice of a woman who has seen a number of changes.

Mr. Tony Marlow: rose—

Mr. Burt: No. I must refuse to give way to many of my hon. Friends because time is short.
I cannot recommend the Opposition's motion to the House because of my uncertainties about it.
Let me now comment on the question of absent parents—this may help hon. Members on both sides of the House. An absent parent does not mean an errant parent. [Interruption.] I am happy to reassure the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) that we know the difference. We are chasing errant parents who did not pay money before. We are trying to find them. We have a tracing mechanism that has been successful in 89 per cent. of cases. In the past, the men involved in those cases would have disappeared. We are now catching them, and it is right to do so. All that the term "absent parent" denotes is the distinction between them and the parent with care. It is not meant to be pejorative in any way.
We have proved that when we are offered solid reasons for reform, our commitment to review the legislation is good and we respond. I am not prepared without proper consideration to return to a system of discretion, which I fear is behind much of what the hon. Member for Garscadden has said.
We will look carefully at what the Act is doing, but it was introduced to improve a system of maintenance that was bad. The system left women dependent for too long on maintenance which was not there, and on the taxpayer on whom she did not want to be dependent. I am not going to allow the lone parent to return to that position, and I ask the House—

Mr. Derek Foster: rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 316.

Division No. 118]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Adams, Mrs Irene
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Ainger, Nick
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Burden, Richard


Allen, Graham
Byers, Stephen


Alton, David
Caborn, Richard


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Callaghan, Jim


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Armstrong, Hilary
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Austin-Walker, John
Campbell-Savours, D. N.



Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Canavan, Dennis


Barnes, Harry
Chisholm, Malcolm


Barron, Kevin
Clapham, Michael


Battle, John
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Bayley, Hugh
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Beggs, Roy
Clelland, David


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bell, Stuart
Coffey, Ann


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cohen, Harry


Bennett, Andrew F.
Connarty, Michael


Benton, Joe
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Berry, Dr. Roger
Corbett, Robin


Betts, Clive
Corbyn, Jeremy


Blair, Tony
Corston, Ms Jean


Blunkett, David
Cousins, Jim


Boateng, Paul
Cox, Tom


Boyes, Roland
Cryer, Bob


Bradley, Keith
Cummings, John





Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Darling, Alistair
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jowell, Tessa


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Keen, Alan


Denham, John
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Dewar, Donald
Khabra, Piara S.


Dixon, Don
Kilfedder, Sir James


Dobson, Frank
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Kirkwood, Archy


Dowd, Jim
Leighton, Ron


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lewis, Terry


Eagle, Ms Angela
Litherland, Robert


Eastham, Ken
Livingstone, Ken


Enright, Derek
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Etherington, Bill
Llwyd, Elfyn


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Loyden, Eddie


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Lynne, Ms Liz


Fatchett, Derek
McAllion, John


Faulds, Andrew
McAvoy, Thomas


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McCartney, Ian


Fisher, Mark
Macdonald, Calum


Flynn, Paul
McFall, John


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McGrady, Eddie


Foster, Don (Bath)
McKelvey, William


Foulkes, George
Mackinlay, Andrew


Fraser, John
McLeish, Henry


Fyfe, Maria
McMaster, Gordon


Galloway, George
McNamara, Kevin


Gapes, Mike
McWilliam, John


Garrett, John
Madden, Max


George, Bruce
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Gerrard, Neil
Mahon, Alice


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mallon, Seamus


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Marek, Dr John


Godsiff, Roger
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Gordon, Mildred
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Graham, Thomas
Martlew, Eric


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Maxton, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Meacher, Michael


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Meale, Alan


Grocott, Bruce
Michael, Alun


Gunnell, John
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Hain, Peter
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Hall, Mike
Milburn, Alan


Hanson, David
Miller, Andrew


Hardy, Peter
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morgan, Rhodri


Henderson, Doug
Morley, Elliot


Hendron, Dr Joe
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Heppell, John

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Hinchliffe, David
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hoey, Kate
Mudie, George


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Mullin, Chris


Home Robertson, John
Murphy, Paul


Hood, Jimmy
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hoon, Geoffrey
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
O'Hara, Edward


Hoyle, Doug
Olner, William


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Neill, Martin


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Parry, Robert


Hume, John
Patchett, Terry


Hutton, John
Pendry, Tom



Illsley, Eric
Pickthall, Colin


Ingram, Adam
Pike, Peter L.


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Pope, Greg


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jamieson, David
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Janner, Greville
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)






Prescott, John
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Primarolo, Dawn
Steinberg, Gerry


Purchase, Ken
Stern, Michael


Quin, Ms Joyce
Stevenson, George


Radice, Giles
Stott, Roger


Randall, Stuart
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Raynsford, Nick
Straw, Jack


Redmond, Martin
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Reid, Dr John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Rendel, David
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Tipping, Paddy


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Tyler, Paul


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Vaz, Keith


Rooker, Jeff
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Rooney, Terry
Wallace, James


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Walley, Joan


Rowlands, Ted
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Ruddock, Joan
Wareing, Robert N


Salmond, Alex
Watson, Mike


Sedgemore, Brian
Welsh, Andrew


Sheerman, Barry
Wicks, Malcolm


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Simpson, Alan
Wilson, Brian


Skinner, Dennis
Winnick, David


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wise, Audrey


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Wray, Jimmy


Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)
Wright, Dr Tony


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)



Snape, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Soley, Clive
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and Mr. Dennis Turner.


Spearing, Nigel



Spellar, John





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Burns, Simon


Aitken, Jonathan
Burt, Alistair


Alexander, Richard
Butcher, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Butler, Peter


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Butterfill, John


Amess, David
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Ancram, Michael
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arbuthnot, James
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carttiss, Michael


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Cash, William


Ashby, David
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Aspinwall, Jack
Churchill, Mr


Atkins, Robert
Clappison, James


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Coe, Sebastian


Baldry, Tony
Colvin, Michael


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Congdon, David


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Conway, Derek


Bates, Michael
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Batiste, Spencer
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)



Bellingham, Henry
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bendall, Vivian
Cormack, Patrick


Beresford, Sir Paul
Cran, James


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Body, Sir Richard
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Booth, Hartley
Day, Stephen


Boswell, Tim
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Devlin, Tim



Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bowden, Andrew
Dicks, Terry


Bowis, John
Dorrell, Stephen


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brandreth, Gyles
Dover, Den


Brazier, Julian
Duncan, Alan


Bright, Graham
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dunn, Bob


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Dykes, Hugh


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Eggar, Tim


Budgen, Nicholas
Elletson, Harold





Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knapman, Roger


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Knox, Sir David


Evennett, David
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Faber, David
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Fabricant, Michael
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Legg, Barry


Fishburn, Dudley
Leigh, Edward


Forman, Nigel
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Forth, Eric
Lidington, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lightbown, David


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Lord, Michael


French, Douglas
Luff, Peter


Fry, Sir Peter
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Gale, Roger
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gallie, Phil
MacKay, Andrew


Gardiner, Sir George
Maclean, David


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
McLoughlin, Patrick


Garnier, Edward
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gill, Christopher
Madel, Sir David


Gillan, Cheryl
Maitland, Lady Olga


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Major, Rt Hon John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Malone, Gerald


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mans, Keith


Gorst, John
Marland, Paul


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mates, Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Merchant, Piers


Hague, William
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moate, Sir Roger


Hampson, Dr Keith
Monro, Sir Hector


Hanley, Jeremy
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hannam, Sir John
Moss, Malcolm


Hargreaves, Andrew
Needham, Richard


Harris, David
Nelson, Anthony


Haselhurst, Alan
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hawkins, Nick
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hawksley, Warren
Nicholls, Patrick


Hayes, Jerry

Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heald, Oliver
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Norris, Steve


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hendry, Charles
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Hicks, Robert
Page, Richard


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Paice, James


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Horam, John
Pawsey, James


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Pickles, Eric


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hunter, Andrew
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Richards, Rod


Jack, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robathan, Andrew


Jenkin, Bernard
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Key, Robert
Sackville, Tom


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Kirkhope, Timothy
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas






Shaw, David (Dover)
Thurnham, Peter


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tracey, Richard


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Tredinnick, David


Shersby, Michael
Trend, Michael


Sims, Roger
Trotter, Neville


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Twinn, Dr Ian


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Viggers, Peter


Soames, Nicholas
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Speed, Sir Keith
Walden, George


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Waller, Gary


Spink, Dr Robert
Ward, John


Spring, Richard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sproat, Iain
Waterson, Nigel


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Watts, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wells, Bowen


Steen, Anthony
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Stephen, Michael
Whitney, Ray


Stewart, Allan
Whittingdale, John


Streeter, Gary
Widdecombe, Ann


Sumberg, David
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Sweeney, Walter
Wilkinson, John


Sykes, John
Willetts, David


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wilshire, David


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Temple-Morris, Peter



Thomason, Roy
Tellers for the Noes:


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Irvine Patnick.


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)



Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 279.

Division No. 119]
[10.15 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bowis, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Alexander, Richard
Brandreth, Gyles


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Brazier, Julian


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Bright, Graham


Amess, David
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Ancram, Michael
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Arbuthnot, James
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Budgen, Nicholas


Ashby, David
Burns, Simon


Aspinwall, Jack
Burt, Alistair


Atkins, Robert
Butcher, John


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Butler, Peter


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Butterfill, John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baldry, Tony
Carrington, Matthew


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Carttiss, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cash, William



Bates, Michael
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Batiste, Spencer
Churchill, Mr


Beggs, Roy
Clappison, James


Bellingham, Henry
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bendall, Vivian
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Coe, Sebastian


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Colvin, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Congdon, David


Booth, Hartley
Conway, Derek


Boswell, Tim
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bowden, Andrew
Cormack, Patrick





Cran, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Day, Stephen
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hunter, Andrew


Devlin, Tim
Jack, Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Dicks, Terry
Jenkin, Bernard


Dorrell, Stephen
Jessel, Toby


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dover, Den
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Duncan, Alan
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dunn, Bob
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Durant, Sir Anthony
Key, Robert


Dykes, Hugh
King, Rt Hon Tom


Eggar, Tim
Knapman, Roger


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knox, Sir David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evennett, David
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Faber, David
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Fabricant, Michael
Legg, Barry


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Leigh, Edward


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Fishburn, Dudley
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Forman, Nigel
Lidington, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lightbown, David


Forth, Eric
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lord, Michael


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Luff, Peter


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


French, Douglas
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fry, Sir Peter
MacKay, Andrew


Gale, Roger
Maclean, David


Gallie, Phil
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gardiner, Sir George
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Madel, Sir David


Garnier, Edward
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gill, Christopher
Major, Rt Hon John


Gillan, Cheryl
Malone, Gerald


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mans, Keith


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marland, Paul


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gorst, John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Mates, Michael


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Merchant, Piers


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hague, William
Moate, Sir Roger


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Monro, Sir Hector


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hampson, Dr Keith
Moss, Malcolm


Hanley, Jeremy
Needham, Richard


Hannam, Sir John
Nelson, Anthony


Hargreaves, Andrew
Neubert, Sir Michael


Harris, David
Newton, Rt Hon Tony



Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholls, Patrick


Hawkins, Nick
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hawksley, Warren
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hayes, Jerry
Norris, Steve


Heald, Oliver
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Ottaway, Richard



Hendry, Charles
Page, Richard


Hicks, Robert
Paice, James


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Patnick, Irvine


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Horam, John
Pawsey, James


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Pickles, Eric






Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Sykes, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Powell, William (Corby)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Rathbone, Tim
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Thomason, Roy


Richards, Rod
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Riddick, Graham
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Robathan, Andrew
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Thurnham, Peter


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Tracey, Richard


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Tredinnick, David


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Trend, Michael


Sackville, Tom
Trotter, Neville


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Twinn, Dr Ian


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shaw, David (Dover)
Viggers, Peter


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Walden, George


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)



Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Waller, Gary


Shersby, Michael
Ward, John


Sims, Roger
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Waterson, Nigel


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Watts, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wells, Bowen


Soames, Nicholas
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Speed, Sir Keith
Whitney, Ray


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Whittingdale, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Widdecombe, Ann


Spink, Dr Robert
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Spring, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Sproat, Iain
Willetts, David


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wilshire, David


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wolfson, Mark


Steen, Anthony
Wood, Timothy


Stephen, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Stern, Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Stewart, Allan



Streeter, Gary
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sumberg, David
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


Sweeney, Walter





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Burden, Richard


Adams, Mrs Irene
Byers, Stephen


Ainger, Nick
Caborn, Richard


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Callaghan, Jim


Allen, Graham
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Alton, David
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Armstrong, Hilary
Canavan, Dennis


Ashton, Joe
Chisholm, Malcolm


Austin-Walker, John
Clapham, Michael


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Barnes, Harry
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Barron, Kevin
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Battle, John
Clelland, David



Bayley, Hugh
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Coffey, Ann


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Cohen, Harry


Bell, Stuart
Connarty, Michael


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Benton, Joe
Corbett, Robin


Bermingham, Gerald
Corbyn, Jeremy


Berry, Dr. Roger
Corston, Ms Jean


Betts, Clive
Cousins, Jim


Blair, Tony
Cox, Tom


Blunkett, David
Cryer, Bob


Boateng, Paul
Cummings, John


Boyes, Roland
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bradley, Keith
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Dalyell, Tam


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Darling, Alistair





Davidson, Ian
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jowell, Tessa


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald



Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Keen, Alan


Denham, John
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Dewar, Donald
Khabra, Piara S.


Dixon, Don
Kilfedder, Sir James


Dobson, Frank
Kirkwood, Archy


Donohoe, Brian H.
Leighton, Ron


Dowd, Jim
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Lewis, Terry


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Litherland, Robert


Eagle, Ms Angela
Livingstone, Ken


Eastham, Ken
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Enright, Derek
Llwyd, Elfyn


Etherington, Bill
Loyden, Eddie


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McAllion, John


Fatchett, Derek
McAvoy, Thomas


Faulds, Andrew
McCartney, Ian


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Macdonald, Calum


Fisher, Mark
McFall, John


Flynn, Paul
McGrady, Eddie


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McKelvey, William


Foster, Don (Bath)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Foulkes, George
McLeish, Henry


Fraser, John
McMaster, Gordon


Fyfe, Maria
McNamara, Kevin


Galloway, George
McWilliam, John


Gapes, Mike
Madden, Max


Garrett, John
Maddock, Mrs Diana


George, Bruce
Mahon, Alice


Gerrard, Neil
Mallon, Seamus


Gill, Christopher
Marek, Dr John


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Godsiff, Roger
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Gordon, Mildred
Martlew, Eric


Graham, Thomas
Maxton, John


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Meacher, Michael


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Michael, Alun


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Grocott, Bruce
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Gunnell, John
Milburn, Alan


Hain, Peter
Miller, Andrew


Hall, Mike
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Hanson, David
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hardy, Peter
Morgan, Rhodri


Harman, Ms Harriet
Morley, Elliot


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Henderson, Doug
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hendron, Dr Joe
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Heppell, John
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Mudie, George


Hinchliffe, David
Mullin, Chris


Hoey, Kate
Murphy, Paul


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Home Robertson, John
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hood, Jimmy
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hoon, Geoffrey
O'Hara, Edward


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Olner, William


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
O'Neill, Martin


Hoyle, Doug
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Parry, Robert


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Patchett, Terry


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Pendry, Tom


Hume, John
Pickthall, Colin


Hutton, John
Pike, Peter L.


Illsley, Eric
Pope, Greg


Ingram, Adam
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)



Jamieson, David
Prescott, John


Janner, Greville
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Randall, Stuart


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Raynsford, Nick






Redmond, Martin
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Reid, Dr John
Straw, Jack


Rendel, David
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Rooker, Jeff
Tipping, Paddy


Rooney, Terry
Turner, Dennis


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Tyler, Paul


Rowlands, Ted
Vaz, Keith


Ruddock, Joan
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Salmond, Alex
Wallace, James


Sedgemore, Brian
Walley, Joan


Sheerman, Barry
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wareing, Robert N


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Watson, Mike


Simpson, Alan
Welsh, Andrew


Skinner, Dennis
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)
Wilson, Brian


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Winnick, David


Snape, Peter
Wise, Audrey


Soley, Clive
Wray, Jimmy



Spearing, Nigel
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Spellar, John



Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Tellers for the Noes:


Steinberg, Gerry
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and Mr. Alan Meale.


Stevenson, George



Stott, Roger

Question accordingly agreed to.

MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the support of the all-party Select Committee on Social Security for the principles of the Child Support Act; reaffirms its own support for those principles, in particular that every parent has a duty to contribute to the maintenance of his or her child, that the amount of maintenance paid for children should be increased, and that the cost of bringing up children should fall on other taxpayers only if parents are unable to maintain their children themselves; recognises the inconsistency and arbitrariness of the previous court-based system, which gave insufficient priority to parental support of children and left many children on benefit; welcomes the important changes recently introduced by the Government in response to early experience of the new scheme and the Select Committee's report on its practical working; and approves the Government's intention to keep the arrangements under continuing close review as further experience is gained.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you recently any notification of a statement tomorrow at 11 am on the investigation report on the Beverly Allitt case? That subject should be brought before the House, and if that is to be done, the appropriate Department should have notified you tonight, so that people know in good time for tomorrow morning. Has the Department had the decency, good sense and sense of co-operation to do that?

Madam Speaker: I have not been informed of any statement this evening. As the hon Gentleman and the House are aware, the House and I do not need to be notified until 10 am if the Government wish to make a statement.

Further Education (Swale)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]

Sir Roger Moate: I warmly welcome this opportunity for a debate on the subject of opportunities for further education in Swale. It is a matter of great importance to my constituents, whether they be young people who may be seriously losing out or the employers—large and small—who may be deprived of the skills and professional work force on which we all depend.
Do I exaggerate when I say "losing out"? I do not think so. The latest analysis produced a startling figure. It showed that only 13 per cent. of Swale youngsters opt for further education, compared with 26 per cent. in the whole county of Kent. That suggests a serious educational deficit, and one that we can, and must, correct. Why it has occurred and how we can correct it are matters that I shall mention tonight.
I welcome the presence of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education. I thank him for his concern and the interest that he has already shown in the subject. I know that he already knows a lot about the borough of Swale. I shall mention some background facts that are crucial to the debate.
Swale in north Kent, most of which is covered by the Faversham constituency, is rightly perceived to be a most attractive part of the garden of England. It is the birthplace of the English fruit industry. It is proud of its orchards, hop gardens, north downs villages, estuarial land, coastline and bird reserves. Agriculture, horticulture and food distribution are still the largest sources of employment. What is not widely understood is that Swale is also one of the most important industrial areas of the south-east of England.
In 1989, the national percentage of people engaged in manufacturing industry was 18.3 per cent. In Swale, it was 29 per cent. The port of Sheerness on the Medway is one of the largest ports in the United Kingdom and—with the Olau line ferry—directly and indirectly generates thousands of jobs. The steel industry produces a significant percentage of United Kingdom steel production, pharmaceuticals, electricals, glass, ceramics, three major paper mills, a major brewery, plasterboard manufacturing, many large industrial estates and much more besides.
With our concentration on industry, construction and commuting to London, we have been hit very hard by the recession. As a result, the Sittingbourne and Sheppey travel-to-work area—that is, the borough of Swale—has the 10th highest unemployment rate in England, the 13th highest in the United Kingdom as a whole, and the highest rate of long-term unemployment in the county of Kent.
Because of that, our area has been granted assisted area status: that, coupled with the prospects for economic growth nationally, presents a great opportunity, but one that can be seized only if we can offer a skilled work force for new or expanding companies in manufacturing or the service industries.
Surveys show that among the top issues that the business community wants to be addressed are further education and skill training. Two of the main constraints on expansion locally were shown to be poor infrastructure and lack of skilled labour. We are moving rapidly ahead at last on infrastructure—on road and rail investment; the


question is, what are we doing about skill training and further education? There we must do more, and we need Ministers' help if we are to more ahead.
As I said earlier, the number of Swale youngsters entering further education is only half the figure for the rest of the county. Almost every other borough in Kent has its own dedicated further education facility; Swale has not. Students and trainees from Sittingbourne, Faversham, Sheerness and the surrounding district must travel to Canterbury, Maidstone or Medway.
That travelling time is the crux of the problem. Cross-county communication in Kent is never easy; even those living close to railway stations must spend two or three hours travelling each day. Someone living at the eastern end of Sheppey—perhaps that is the most extreme example—would have to travel for about four hours each way to and from Canterbury.
Let us take a BTEC business administration course at Canterbury college. It starts at 1 pm, and ends at 8.30 pm. Someone from Sittingbourne would get back to the station at 10 pm, which is too late for most 16-year-olds, and certainly impossible for anyone living on Sheppey. Those transport problems must be the main reason why young people from Swale are not entering further education at the same level as young people in the rest of the country. That is very serious.
Swale is a large borough, with a population of 116,000. That figure is rising fast, and already represents about 8 per cent. of the county of Kent. Further education funding for 1992–93 for the whole county was £34 million, and the Swale share of that could be seen as just under £3 million.
If we could direct resources of that order—or even part of that amount—into Swale, we could establish excellent local facilities of a good size. That is a goal worth aiming for, which should be in our minds when we consider the more immediate steps that can be taken. Our goal should surely be a Swale college, and I hope that that concept will stimulate a sympathetic response from the Department and neighbouring further-education establishments.
The right framework is already in place, in the form of the Swale training centre. That organisation has grown out of a remarkable level of co-operation between the business community and Swale borough council, the education service, Kent technical college, Swale chamber of commerce and many other agencies. It is important to underline the amount of backing and co-operation that the community would provide in support of a new further education initiative in Swale.
Swale Training Centre Ltd. is Kent's largest training provider, housed on a 1-hectare site in Sittingbourne. It has 6,000 sq m of workshops and other facilities, and is very well equipped to a very high standard. Those training facilities are very highly regarded, and are in a very good location. The training centre was founded in 1981, and now employs more than 100 staff and consultants. It assists the training and development of more than 3,000 people annually, and is accredited by most examining organisations and industry-led bodies.
Like others, I had hoped that the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 would be the springboard for expansion. The Act provides for the funding of external institutions such as the Swale training centre—further education colleges that cannot meet local needs because of, for example, location or lack of specialist provision. It required that any external institution had to be endorsed by an existing college—one within striking distance.
Funding decisions are taken by the Further Education Funding Council, which is clearly constrained by the Act. It is not obvious how much discretion it has when a neighbouring institution is not able or willing positively to endorse an external institution that would obviously be competing for funds from the same pot.
Swale training centre applied for funds last year, but the application was rejected. Although the application was routed through an existing college, the lack of positive endorsement was cited as a reason for rejection. This year we are applying again, and it is tremendously important that we secure funding for the first important step in the expansion of further education in our area.
Let us be clear what will happen if we do not get the funding: perhaps hundreds of youngsters will not get the training opportunities that they need and that could be made available in September.
The funds that we are seeking this year will be about £250,000, which would provide facilities for at least 100 full-time students. They would include a range of BTEC courses in vocational subjects such as mechanical engineering, business administration, motor vehicle mechanics, information technology and a range of courses for the new general national vocational qualification—equivalent to A-levels—in manufacturing, construction, catering, design and so on. There is a special problem, as the application forms are not yet available, although the courses start in September.
I am sure that the requirement for endorsement by an existing college was conceived with the best of intentions, but it should not be a straitjacket stifling new initiatives and local enterprise. So what is the position? The funding council might not statutorily be able to fund an external institution that has not received positive endorsement from an existing college.
Last November, however, the funding council, in consultation circular 93/34, put forward a number of options for the method of funding external institutions. One was sponsorship by a college, another was sponsorship by the local education authority, and a third was direct funding by the council to largely autonomous external institutions, of which Swale training centre is undoubtedly one. That suggests that the Act does not prevent direct funding. There is also an implication that approval could be allowed even where sponsorship falls short of enthusiastic endorsement by another existing further education college.
What specifically am I asking the Minister this evening? First, it would be greatly appreciated if he could come and see for himself just how good the Swale training centre is. I can assure him that he will be impressed. At the same time, he could experience some of the other delights of north Kent.
Secondly, will he use all his best endeavours to help ensure the success of our funding application this year? It may be that his officials at this early stage in the application—the application has not been submitted because we do not yet have the forms—could advise us on the best route to achieve approval in accordance with 1.he requirements of the legislation. Where there's a will, there must be a way.
Thirdly, I should like to ask for my hon. Friend's encouragement and that of his Department for the concept of the Swale college, and again seek his support and advice on how best to attain that objective, albeit perhaps a longer-term one. It is not an issue of local pride, nor is it


about creating institutions for their own sake; it is about providing vitally needed training and further education to hundreds of young people. We have clearly identified a serious educational deficit. That gap—that deficit—exists for geographical reasons, which are unalterable. That gap exists in one of the most important manufacturing areas in the south of England. It is a gap that can and must be filled, and I repeat my hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can, and will, give us a helping hand tonight.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): I must begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) on securing a debate about what is, I know, an important subject for many of his constituents—and, if I may say so, on the excellent manner in which he presented his case and the obvious concern that he showed for them, as ever. It is also a subject of general interest to the House.
My hon. Friend has spoken eloquently of the difficulties that confront some of his constituents in gaining access to further education. I will turn to his specific concerns in a moment, but first, I should like to say a few words about the Government's general policies for further education. Those have two main aims; to increase participation and to raise levels of achievement.
I am glad to say that the participation rate of 16 to 18-year-olds in education and training is at record levels. That marks a definite shift in cultural attitudes. It is now normal for young people to continue in education and training after the age of 16. The participation rate of 16-year-olds in full-time education—both further education and schools—in England in 1992–93 was 70 per cent., up from 42 per cent. in 1979–80
For 17-year-olds, the participation rate in full-time education in 1992–93 was 54 per cent., up from 27 per cent. in the same reference year. Adult participation has also increased, to the point at which adults now account for 70 per cent. of the total number of students in further education.
Those are impressive increases, but our aim must be to increase the figures still further. I am aware that, in certain parts of the country, participation rates are lower than elsewhere—indeed, there are considerable variations even in individual areas.
The Government have taken practical steps to ensure that we secure an increase in participation. In 1992, we announced that we were aiming for a record expansion of student numbers in further education of 25 per cent. during the three years to 1995–96. The expansion plans announced in the unified Budget allow for that expansion to be sustained, and for a further 3 per cent. increase in 1996–97 to maintain participation of 16 to 18-year-olds at the level that it will have reached in 1995–96.
That is against the background of the most difficult public expenditure round for many years. I believe that that shows clearly that further education continues to be at the heart of the Government's policies for raising levels of achievment and increasing skill levels.
Our plans will also enable a large step to be taken towards achievement of the national education and training targets. Those are the minimum that we must achieve if we

are to match the levels of achievement of our competitors. I should like to take the opportunity of the debate to reaffirm the Government's commitment to achieving the targets.
That, then, is the national picture. It is one of which we can, I believe, be justifiably proud. I fully recognise, however, that it is important that the progress that we have made in recent years, and the further progress to which we are committed, are reflected throughout the country.
That is why the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 gave the Further Education Funding Council responsibility for securing the provision of facilities for all full-time education for 16 to 18-year-olds, and for certain types of part-time education and certain types of full-time education for those aged over 18.
The funding council carries out its duties principally through the 465 colleges in the further education sector. However, in drafting the legislation, we recognised the need for the council to take account of other providers. That is why the Further and Higher Education Act requires the council to have regard to education provided by other institutions, such as schools and city technology colleges.
In recognition of the diversity of local provision, the Act also allows institutions outside the further education sector—known, as my hon. Friend said, as "external institutions"—to request funding from the funding council for providing certain types of part-time courses for 16 to 19-year-olds and full-time courses for older students who fall within the council's responsibility. They include courses which lead to academic or vocational qualifications, access courses and basic skills courses. All are courses of national significance. As my hon. Friend said, the mechanism by which they may apply for funding is known as the "sponsorship" mechanism, the relevant provision being section 6(5) of the Act.
I understand that that is the procedure under which Swale training centre sought funding unsuccessfully in the current year—1993–94—and under which it will be seeking funds from the Further Education Funding Council in 1994–95. I can perhaps lay to rest my hon. Friend's fears about the forms. I am advised that they are now available from the funding council, and that they need to be returned by, I think, 21 March. I suggest that he advises the college to get on with its application.
In discussing the Swale case, it is important to be clear how the procedure is designed to work. When an external institution wishes to seek funding from the Further Education Funding Council, it must first put its case to a college in the FE sector. It is then for that college to decide whether to support the request and to make the application for funding to the funding council on behalf of the external institution.
The criteria against which the sector college—the "sponsoring body" in the legal parlance—must reach a decision are clearly laid down in the Act. The Act states that, where there are no arrangements for the provision by any other institution of any facilities of the kind specified in the application for people living in the locality, or where the arrangements for such provision are inadequate, the sponsoring body should submit the application for funding to the FEFC.
Following extensive consultations with colleges and local education authorities, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made an order specifying all institutions in the new further education sector as "sponsoring bodies". However, my Department has also made it clear in


guidance that, in order to fulfil its role, the sponsoring body has to be able to take an objective view of the adequacy of the provision available for the population of its locality.
"Locality" must be interpreted sensibly; it will apply differently in urban and rural areas. In most cases, the suitable choice of sponsoring body will be the nearest sector college to the applicant institution or, if there is more than one within a reasonable distance, one of them.
As for last year's procedure, the funding council has told us that the funding request from the Swale centre was not supported by the sponsoring college—in this case Canterbury college—on the basis that the facilities already available for the local population were adequate. Indeed, I gather that it was the college's view that Swale training centre's application would duplicate existing provision, including franchised arrangements between Canterbury college and local schools. The funding council did not, therefore, make any funding available.
My hon. Friend made much of the inadequacy of opportunities for further education in the Swale area, but Canterbury college's decision to refuse to support the request by Swale training centre for funding to alleviate the perceived lack of opportunity does not appear to square with that. Moreover, in assessing adequacy of opportunities, any relevant provision offered by schools in the area needs also to be taken into account.
In order to review the effectiveness of the section 6(5) procedures that I have described, the funding council employed a consultant last year to visit the Swale training centre and similar institutions. I understand that the consultant reported that courses of the type for which Swale training centre was requesting funding were already being provided in at least two of Kent's further education colleges—Canterbury and Mid-Kent—whether directly or through a franchising arrangement of some sort.
I fully appreciate the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend about the difficulties and long journeys faced by many of his constituents, especially the younger ones, in travelling from Swale to Canterbury and Mid-Kent colleges. Public transport is not one of my responsibilities, but it is clearly an issue that Swale training centre will wish to stress in making its request for funding in 1994–95, and something which the sponsoring body will need to take into careful account.
My hon. Friend argued that the section 6(5) mechanism—a mechanism that we introduced to ensure that bodies outside the further education sector, such as the Swale training centre, could have access to funds from the Further Education Funding Council—did not appear to be working. But I must beg to disagree. The funding council made available a total of £50 million in 1993–94 in support of applications from external institutions. Those allocations were designed to deliver broad stability from the previous year, with some growth in the following year. I believe that the procedures have worked well.
Two important indicators have emerged. First, there are clear signs of buoyancy in demand for courses. Secondly, the procedures have led to increased co-operation between institutions in the further education and local education authority sectors.
It is not for me or for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make the judgment as to the adequacy of local provision. The Act very properly gives that decision to the institution which best knows the extent of both existing provision and demand in the area—the local college in the further education sector.
There are safeguards to those procedures. If an external institution feels that the decision of the local FE college is misguided, it can approach the funding council direct, which could review the case with the sponsoring college.
My hon. Friend expressed fears that potential sponsoring bodies would not support an application from Swale training centre, because it would be seen as a competitor. As we made clear during the passage of the Bill, the funding council—as well as my ministerial colleagues and myself—would be concerned by evidence that a college was blocking an application for purely self-interested reasons.
In the last resort, the external institution may complain to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the sponsoring college's view of the adequacy of local provision is not soundly based, or that the college—or indeed the council itself—had failed in its statutory duty. I should add, however, that, for the Secretary of State to be able to intervene, it would be necessary to show that the sponsoring body's view about the adequacy of provision was not simply different from his or the council's, but manifestly ill founded. I should expect that to be a hard test to pass.
My hon. Friend spoke about the support which the Swale training centre has had locally for its application, and I have myself seen letters from the local education authority to that effect. I may add, however, that one of the factors which the funding council took into account in considering applications from external institutions via sponsoring bodies in 1993–94—the first year of the council's operation—was whether the courses for which funding was being requested had been funded in the previous year by the local education authority.
That was because the council was quite rightly concerned to ensure continuity of provision wherever possible. I understand that, when the council came to consider the new request from the Swale training centre, it noted that the request was for the funding of new provision which Kent education authority had not supported the year before. Thus, even if Canterbury college had supported last year's request from Swale for the current year, the council would not have been inclined to support it.
For 1994–95, the funding council is introducing new procedures for funding external institutions, which will allow more scope for funding new provision, on the basis of the council's new funding formula. Despite last year's unsuccessful application, it is therefore open to Swale training centre to put in a request for funding once again, but it must be put in promptly.
I repeat that the sponsoring college can make a formal application to the funding council only if it is convinced that there is no alternative provision or that alternative provision is inadequate. The centre may therefore be well advised to consider very carefully the nature of the provision available in alternative institutions in the area, and Canterbury and Mid-Kent colleges in particular, before making its request for funding.
However, as I have also said, in the event that one of those colleges declines to sponsor the application, it is open to the centre to approach the funding council direct. The funding council would then be able to consider the request itself, and negotiate how best to deal with it with the sponsoring body.
I was interested to hear my hon. Friend's remarks about the long-term plans for a Swale college of further education. He will know that I cannot comment on those


this evening. He may, however, like to know a little about the procedure for bringing an existing institution into the further education sector.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has powers under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 to establish, by order, a further education corporation to conduct an existing institution. Given the funding council's statutory duties with respect to securing the provision of further education, it is my right hon. Friend's view that any proposal for the establishment of a new FE corporation should fall to be considered by the council in the first instance.
Where the council favours such a proposal, the institution would need to publish proposals for incorporation in accordance with certain regulations. My right hon. Friend would then take account of the council's recommendations before taking a decision whether to make the necessary order.
We have had an interesting debate, and I recognise the strength of feeling in the Swale community, which my hon. Friend has so convincingly and eloquently conveyed. However, I believe that the procedures in place for ensuring that the case for funding the Swale training centre is properly considered are adequate and have been properly followed. I have no doubt that they can work again in the coming year if the Swale centre makes another request.
My hon. Friend will understand from what I have said that it is not a matter in which I or my right hon. Friend have any direct locus. We have set the framework; it is now for the Further Education Funding Council and for local institutions in the area to make it work.
I conclude by thanking my hon. Friend for his contribution to the debate, and for opening up the topic. I express the hope that I shall be able to accept his kind invitation to visit Swale so that I can see the area for myself and the institution before too long.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Eleven o'clock.